The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[Subduction Zone]

I believe he asked for a biological barrier.

Had he not done so, I would have immediately answered: "time."

In other words you accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it's more of a information barrier. All it required for a frog to change into a prince is the code (there's more information than just DNA) built to do so. I'm amazed a caterpillar can become a butterfly yet that's all because the code is already built-in ; both the DNA and cell structure.

Not built in so much as of course evolved.

So are you in agreement with AV that one of the key factors in speciation is time? There must also be some sort of separation, but time is a HUGE factor.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words you accept the theory of evolution.

Indeed I do.

To a point.

 

[evoeth]

Planet formation began 4.5 billion years.

Our planet.

There are modelers out there who can demonstrate that <1 billion years is long enough for heavy elements to be produced in dense stars, disperse in a supernova, and recoalesce into a new planet with heavy elements.

 

[Smidlee]

Not built in so much as of course evolved.

So are you in agreement with AV that one of the key factors in speciation is time? There must also be some sort of separation, but time is a HUGE factor.

Information evolves sound a lot like magic to me. 15 Billion of years is not a lot of time when it comes creating large amount of information without intelligent. This is why some scientist wants to believe in multiple universes.
Time is an enemy of all natural information sources. The only thing that can reverse the entropy of information is an intelligence. This is why abiogenesis is impossible as the materials (DNA, RNA) that contains the information will naturally fall apart.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think it's more of a information barrier. All it required for a frog to change into a prince is the code (there's more information than just DNA) built to do so. I'm amazed a caterpillar can become a butterfly yet that's all because the code is already built-in ; both the DNA and cell structure.

Yes you are correct. It has to do with genetics, but I like the simplicity of using taxonomical barriers to communicate the issue. But you are correct.

 

[createdtoworship]

many creationists say species cannot interbreed but below are many types that can:

"enus: Canis: wolf, coyote, dingo, jackal, domestic dog

Genus: Cepaea: white-lipped snail and grove snail
Genus: Lynx: canadian lynx and bobcat
Genus: Ursus: polar bear and grizzly bear
Genus: Larus: herring gull and american herring gull
Genus: Rattus: brown rat and black rat
Genus: Anser: canada goose and greylag goose (supposedly there is a lot of hybridization among ducks, geese and swan)
Genus: Volpes: red fox and kit fox"

from:

Different Species That Can Interbreed - Stormfront

but notice you don't see genus populations crossbreeding with other genus populations.
Nature prohibits cross genus reproduction. And so does science. This is why evolution really really is not a scientific theory at all. Just a scientific model.

but even if there are occasional cross genus reproduction, I have yet to see a sub family cross breed with another sub family.

but for the most part genus does have a natural barrier of reproduction. Even if there are one or two in the animal world that may cross breed.

this is why I have picked genus as a barrier for my studies.

it looks like the inventor of the modern taxonomy also views genus as a type of barrier:

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

 

[biggles53]

has nothing to do with sterility, it has to do with reproductive compatibility. An organism has a group of say species that it can cross breed with (sometimes interspecies breeding can take place but not all the time). But it cannot breed with other genus, now psychosara has mentioned that a whole group changes and somehow their reproductive groups change as a whole and now frogs are able to breed with say lizards because the whole group grew lungs and fertilization techniques. This is fictional to say the least. Never has a whole population changed its breeding group in a generation or even a million generations. You can't change your reproductive group. Humans will never be able to mate with monkeys, hence this is why you can't at the same time take an ape heart and transplant it with a human heart. They are different genus.

You fall into the same 'crocoduck' category as AV.....! Surprise, surprise...!

My question had NOTHING to do with reproduction....sit down quietly and have a long think...

It had to do with the process of MUTATION....and whilst those mutations are certainly carried from one generation to the next through the vehicle of reproduction, NO-ONE is suggesting that 'macro' evolution has anything to do with the moronic models suggested by Kirk Cameron and his addled acolytes...

If we WERE to witness something has ridiculous as a horse giving birth to a clam, the evolutionary model would be immediately and conclusively disproven...

You have in your genetic makeup somewhere between 100 and 200 mutations that neither of your parents possessed. Your children will have a similar number that are unique to them and that you don't possess, as well as inheriting some of your unique mutations......and so on, and so on down through the generations.....so, again (in vain...?) I repeat my question....

What is the biological mechanism which somehow prevents this process of mutations from one generation to the next progressing indefinitely ....?

And save the juvenile responses for those who will be impressed by them....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Indeed I do.

To a point.

It doesn't work that way, AV. There is no difference in the mechanisms that allow for "microevolution" and "macroevolution", just that over time more differences appear. The process never stops. There is nothing to limit mutations. The only reason you can't watch "macroevolution" with your own eyes all the time is the limitations of the human lifespan. If you could live 10,000 years you would be able to observe it.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

many creationists say species cannot interbreed but below are many types that can:

"enus: Canis: wolf, coyote, dingo, jackal, domestic dog

Genus: Cepaea: white-lipped snail and grove snail
Genus: Lynx: canadian lynx and bobcat
Genus: Ursus: polar bear and grizzly bear
Genus: Larus: herring gull and american herring gull
Genus: Rattus: brown rat and black rat
Genus: Anser: canada goose and greylag goose (supposedly there is a lot of hybridization among ducks, geese and swan)
Genus: Volpes: red fox and kit fox"

from:

Different Species That Can Interbreed - Stormfront

but notice you don't see genus populations crossbreeding with other genus populations.
Nature prohibits cross genus reproduction. And so does science. This is why evolution really really is not a scientific theory at all. Just a scientific model.

but even if there are occasional cross genus reproduction, I have yet to see a sub family cross breed with another sub family.

but for the most part genus does have a natural barrier of reproduction. Even if there are one or two in the animal world that may cross breed.

this is why I have picked genus as a barrier for my studies.

it looks like the inventor of the modern taxonomy also views genus as a type of barrier:

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

Could you clarify your position for me a little bit? It seems like you are arguing that because genera can't interbreed, this proves that evolution could not produce new genera. If that is your position, it should be noted that the latter does not follow from the former. How does a lack of generic interfertility prevent a population from changing until it is distinct enough from its parent population to warrant a different genus?

 

[lasthero]

Gradyll...why the heck are you using a board post from a racist website as your source?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Gradyll...why the heck are you using a board post from a racist website as your source?

Yeah, it says White Pride World Wide in the upper left corner. I now feel very uncomfortable.

 

[lasthero]

Yeah, it says White Pride World Wide in the upper left corner. I now feel very uncomfortable.

Because when I want to learn about species and interbreeding, that where I go - a White Pride website. Forget scientists, I'm going for the skinheads. I'm sure they'll have an objective, reasonable view on the subject.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because when I want to learn about species and interbreeding, that where I go - a White Pride website. Forget scientists, I'm going for the skinheads. I'm sure they'll have an objective, reasonable view on the subject.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he posted that link without realizing the nature of the website, since the URL doesn't given it away.

 

[createdtoworship]

How does a lack of generic interfertility prevent a population from changing until it is distinct enough from its parent population to warrant a different genus?

thanks for the comment, simply because it is very rare if ever that a genus would interbreed with another genus, regardless of one generation, or a million. It simply doesn't happen. Unless you have some examples. Thanks again.

 

[PsychoSarah]

thanks for the comment, simply because it is very rare if ever that a genus would interbreed with another genus, regardless of one generation, or a million. It simply doesn't happen. Unless you have some examples. Thanks again.

That doesn't disprove evolution, which doesn't require animals from a different genus to breed to work.

 

[biggles53]

thanks for the comment, simply because it is very rare if ever that a genus would interbreed with another genus, regardless of one generation, or a million. It simply doesn't happen. Unless you have some examples. Thanks again.

No one has suggested that....are you intentionally trying to be thick....!?

No one is suggesting that a dog will breed with a fish. However, you are asked to indicate what the biological mechanism is that would prevent the genome of a fish population to slowly mutate, so that it no longer resembled the genome of the original species.................can't do it, can you...!?

 

[createdtoworship]

You fall into the same 'crocoduck' category as AV.....! Surprise, surprise...!

My question had NOTHING to do with reproduction....sit down quietly and have a long think...

It had to do with the process of MUTATION....and whilst those mutations are certainly carried from one generation to the next through the vehicle of reproduction, NO-ONE is suggesting that 'macro' evolution has anything to do with the moronic models suggested by Kirk Cameron and his addled acolytes...

If we WERE to witness something has ridiculous as a horse giving birth to a clam, the evolutionary model would be immediately and conclusively disproven...

You have in your genetic makeup somewhere between 100 and 200 mutations that neither of your parents possessed. Your children will have a similar number that are unique to them and that you don't possess, as well as inheriting some of your unique mutations......and so on, and so on down through the generations.....so, again (in vain...?) I repeat my question....

What is the biological mechanism which somehow prevents this process of mutations from one generation to the next progressing indefinitely ....?

And save the juvenile responses for those who will be impressed by them....

ok, let me explain. There are no transitions between genus levels. No monkey/man transitions, no whale/doglike transitions nothing. BTW each of those stated are different genra, so no not mutations, or added billions of years, or little changes in the genetic makup, or evolution can change that you have no evidence. Unless you can provide an example, go ahead. Until then we all know that your evolution is not real science because it's non observed and non repeatable.

thanks for the comment.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok, let me explain. There are no transitions between genus levels. No monkey/man transitions, no whale/doglike transitions nothing. BTW each of those stated are different genra, so no not mutations, or added billions of years, or little changes in the genetic makup, or evolution can change that you have no evidence.

Well there aren't mashed up combo genus ranks to place those creatures that mark the transition, so the creatures do exist, they just give people a rough time with determining which genus to put them in (as a result that they ate the transitions between genus).

 

[biggles53]

ok, let me explain. There are no transitions between genus levels. No monkey/man transitions, no whale/doglike transitions nothing. BTW each of those stated are different genra, so no not mutations, or added billions of years, or little changes in the genetic makup, or evolution can change that you have no evidence. Unless you can provide an example, go ahead. Until then we all know that your evolution is not real science because it's non observed and non repeatable.

thanks for the comment.

Except for the fact that we have (literally...!) tons of evidence to support exactly those transitions...!

But, by all means, continue to bury your head and ignore any evidence which is at odds with your fantasy....