Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: b_sharp

[What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?]

Any scientific textbook that discusses the factual (and not the hypothesised yet unproven) capabilities of genes- time plays no part in moecular biological fact

[Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?]

Where? Online or library- help yourself- “Tried an accumulation of mutations? No- they let the process take it’s ‘natural’ course. The result? Freakish fruitflies- no fruit bats!

[Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?]

Genetic sequences. The mutated fruitflies retained their unique fruitfly genetic information- the sequence reamined intact and was limitted to fruitfly only caps- centuries of selective breeding have proven that species specific information can’t be altered enough to move a species outside it’s own KIND. No amtter how hard we’ve tried- it is simply biologically impossible to do so. Time doesn’t solve the biolgical problem- the evidnece doesn’t show creation of new organs or systems not unique to a species. We’ve been over and over the species specific limitations many times here with many links given- There simp-ly are no evidneces that support the idea that species gain NEW information not unique to the species and not spcific to the species. Each species has limits as to how altered their information can become, and we Dhese limits in nature and the record


185 posted on 06/14/2007 8:44:28 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]


To: CottShop
[What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?]

"Any scientific textbook that discusses the factual (and not the hypothesised yet unproven) capabilities of genes-..."

I didn't ask you to make a generic comment, I asked you for specifics. You made a number of claims that were specific about organisms surviving hundreds of millions of years without change. I asked for an example of that which you ignored then I asked where you obtained information that states species must speciate within a given time frame. You made a specific claim that suggests questions requiring specific answers. The onus is on you to provide a link to some science somewhere that stats there is a time limit to morphological stasis.

Where is that specific information?

"time plays no part in moecular biological fact"

If you are saying that there are no time limits then why did you bring up the claim that there are organisms which have not changed since the Precambrian? When you made that statement it appeared to me, and probably others, that you were trying to invalidate evolution by claiming those organisms should have changed had evolution been correct, but since they have not (according to you) evolution must be false.

If that is not your intention in this new claim then you are quite wrong. Even your own words support the idea that genomes change over time so time is very much a factor in molecular biology.

[Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?]

"Where? Online or library- help yourself- “Tried an accumulation of mutations? No- they let the process take it’s ‘natural’ course. The result? Freakish fruitflies- no fruit bats!

You made a specific claim. The onus is on you to provide specific support for that claim.

If the scientists had no intention to create a new species, your comments are irrelevant. My understanding of the research is that it is not an attempt to create new species but a tool to explore how changes to the genome affects the phenotype. If they had wanted to create new species then they would have had to try the 'natural' path which requires an accumulation of changes in different areas of the genome.

Evolution is an accumulation of changes, you cannot get away from that, so for you to claim that no speciation has occurred by giving an example where no speciation was attempted through multiple changes to multiple alleles throughout multiple generations, invalidates your claim. This is simple logic.

[Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?]

"Genetic sequences. The mutated fruitflies retained their unique fruitfly genetic information- the sequence reamined intact and was limitted to fruitfly only caps- centuries of selective breeding have proven that species specific information can’t be altered enough to move a species outside it’s own KIND.

Selective breeding is not an attempt to move something beyond its own 'kind' (whatever that is) it is an attempt to fix a specific allele within a population. No consideration has ever been given to selecting for alleles which do not express a non-morphological change and in fact any divergence from the ideal is removed from the population. Selection is used to cluster the population around a specific trait thus constraining the changes in the population.

We have never, ever, duplicated all the forms of selection active on a population in a single species. We have never ever even tried.

"No amtter how hard we’ve tried- it is simply biologically impossible to do so.

We have never tried.

"Time doesn’t solve the biolgical problem- the evidnece doesn’t show creation of new organs or systems not unique to a species. We’ve been over and over the species specific limitations many times here with many links given- There simp-ly are no evidneces that support the idea that species gain NEW information not unique to the species and not spcific to the species. Each species has limits as to how altered their information can become, and we Dhese limits in nature and the record

Yes we have gone over this and found that you are incapable of defining information let alone quantifying it enough for it to be objectively measured. Your entire argument boils down to a putative ability to somehow guess that one organism has more information than some other. Your explanation of information and its limits is unconvincing without a more scientific approach.

228 posted on 06/15/2007 1:43:09 PM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right. Jiggle the handle. If they scream ignore it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson