What things can't ID explain? What things can't evolution explain? Bring it on!

[DevotiontoBible]

I have to go for the night

 

[kingzfan2000]

Where exactly is the genetic dividing line between species? What prevents a fish from not being a fish? How is it prevented from becoming too different? What mechanism is it? Could you provide some literature to back up that there is an arbitrary dividing line that limits how far a population can be removed from its parent population?

Alot of it is what you call a "fish" as well. Species, families, orders, groups, all are somewhat arbitrary groups developed by humans to describe nature.

What makes a fish a fish? The same thing that makes a fish a fish (its genetic makeup) is what prevents it from becoming too different. There obviously is no scientific literature that explains a mechanism that limits how far a population can evolve or there would not be an evolution vs creation/ID debate.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

You're talking about big bang theory, that's not evolution.

You are ignoring Einstines theory of relativity and the second Law of Thermodynamics if you think the universe never had a beginning.

I have to go for the night now.

 

[kingzfan2000]

You are ignoring Einstines theory of relativity and the second Law of Thermodynamics if you think the universe never had a beginning.

I have to go for the night now.

 

[LogicChristian]

What makes a fish a fish? The same thing that makes a fish a fish (its genetic makeup) is what prevents it from becoming too different. There obviously is no scientific literature that explains a mechanism that limits how far a population can evolve or there would not be an evolution vs creation/ID debate.

What part of its genetic makeup prevents it from evolving past a certain point? Considering mutations, recombination, and natural selection would change the genetic makeup of a population, I would say the genetic code itself doesn't prevent anything.

How does the genetic code prevent fish from changing to something that's not a "fish." Why was the genetic code made with man's conception of what a "fish" is in mind?

 

[LogicChristian]

You are ignoring Einstines theory of relativity and the second Law of Thermodynamics if you think the universe never had a beginning.

Both are PRATTs, and have no place here.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

Where exactly is the genetic dividing line between species?

Between species – It’s when two individuals from two different populations (male and female) cannot produce a fertile offspring. The infertility is due to the inability to correctly regulate their development & form germ cells.

What prevents a fish from not being a fish?

Depends on how you define a fish.

How is it prevented from becoming too different?

I don’t quite understand what you mean.

What mechanism is it?

Again, I’m not too sure here. I’m assuming your asking what basis is there for a fish to change over time. If it is that, the genetic variability in a population is responsible.

Could you provide some literature to back up that there is an arbitrary dividing line that limits how far a population can be removed from its parent population?

If you search talkorigins.org you’ll find some stuff pertinent. As far as arbitrary line, the line between species is fairly well defined.

Alot of it is what you call a "fish" as well. Species, families, orders, groups, all are somewhat arbitrary groups developed by humans to describe nature.

Yup.

 

[kingzfan2000]

What part of its genetic makeup prevents it from evolving past a certain point? Considering mutations, recombination, and natural selection would change the genetic makeup of a population, I would say the genetic code itself doesn't prevent anything.

How does the genetic code prevent fish from changing to something that's not a "fish." Why was the genetic code made with man's conception of what a "fish" is in mind?

If mutations, recombination, and natural selection would change the genetic makeup of a population, why does evolution of one kind of animal into another supposedly take tens to hundreds of millions of years? If the genetic code doesnt prevent anything, why do different types of animals remain in a state of stasis instead of rapidly changing into a new type of animal. If there is no barrier, then why does evolution take hundreds of millions of years?

 

[LogicChristian]

If mutations, recombination, and natural selection would change the genetic makeup of a population, why does evolution of one kind of animal into another supposedly take tens to hundreds of millions of years? If the genetic code doesnt prevent anything, why do different types of animals remain in a state of stasis instead of rapidly changing into a new type of animal. If there is no barrier, then why does evolution take hundreds of millions of years?

It has to do with environments and selection pressures. Some populations can remain much the same for millions of years. Somtimes, huge amounts of change can happen in a few millenia.

I said there's no barrier in the genetic code, not no barrier to change.

 

[Split Rock]

That still does not explain how wings originated or how creatures that previously could not fly, learned to fly. Did it start with just feathers on arms? If birds evolved from dinosaurs, what caused dinosaurs arms to turn into wings. Just having feathers is not enough to be able to fly as your body has to be suited for flight. So how did dinosaurs lose their arms and transform them into wings. Also, once these creatures finally had wings, how did they start flying? Was it trial and error? Did they climb trees and jump out? How did this ability progress from one generation to the next?

A couple of characteristics of small therapods predisposed them to flight.

1. Some therapods had feathers for insulation and/or signaling. We have found several in China.

2. Small therapods had hollow bones for reducing weight.

We have the evidence in Archaeopteryx, which is basically a small theropod dinosaur with wings.

The arms were not lost, but transformed into wings. They still have the same basic structure of arms, however. Fancy that!

The question of whether bird flight evolved from the trees or from the ground up is still a hotly contested area. More fossils may help us asnwer this question.

 

[Tomk80]

If mutations, recombination, and natural selection would change the genetic makeup of a population, why does evolution of one kind of animal into another supposedly take tens to hundreds of millions of years? If the genetic code doesnt prevent anything, why do different types of animals remain in a state of stasis instead of rapidly changing into a new type of animal. If there is no barrier, then why does evolution take hundreds of millions of years?

That depends on what you mean with ' evolution'. If you man a change of species, we have observed that happening in our time, so that doesn't take hundreds of millions of years.

If you mean rigorous changes, as between classes or orders, this indeed takes longer. But that makes sense, because to pass on traits, the organism will have to fnd a mate. If an organism is too different from the rest of the population, it won't find a mate and hence will not reproduce. So on that level there is already a restriction in the speed evolution can take.

And on top of that, with a process of random mutations driving diversification within the species, it figures that such changes aren't likely to be major. If they are, a major random overhoal would likely result in death, while minor changes will often not result in death.

So there's a restriction in the speed of evolution both from a selective and genetic perspective.

Stasis is a likely point to arrive in, after the environmental conditions are the same for a longer period of time. After a while, an equilibrium will be reached, in which selection pressures will have a stabilizing effect. That's why we see certain outburst of evolution after a major change in environment (like the radiatio of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs).