Replies

“what is going to STOP the inevitable genetic change in a population that is a result of the absolute impossibility for a living system to copy DNA with 100% fidelity.”

The best answer is what I’ve given—that you have no empirical grounds to claim that continous, intra-species change will occur based on the observation that change has been observed in discrete instances within a single species.

But a more concrete answer is that genetic change has a negative feedback effect on reproduction—too much of it will cause inability to reproduce and therefore the particular line of genetic change reaches a dead end.

The best answer is what I’ve given

Is it?

you have no empirical grounds to claim that continous, intra-species change will occur based on the observation that change has been observed in discrete instances within a single species.

And, if we point you to countless reams of science showing evidence contrary to your unsupported statement, will you change your worldview?

genetic change has a negative feedback effect on reproduction—too much of it will cause inability to reproduce and therefore the particular line of genetic change reaches a dead end.

This is an interesting hypothesis. And while it is true of a very few species; like, say the ebola virus which kills human hosts too fast to spread as much as it would like, it makes no sense in the real world.

Do you look exatly like your mother or your father? I mean, EXACTLY alike. No. There has been some genetic change. Now granted, you and your parents and their parents and their parents are all the same species. But were your Gr-G-G-G grandparents as tall as you? No. Go back 5 more generations and your ancestors will be unrecognizable as having contributed to your genetics. Go back 30, 40 generations and your ancestors will have very few genetic markers you do, save the ones real scientists purposely study as they are always retained "as is."

And guess what, keep going back back back and GASP! Your ancestors will be much hairier, much shorter, much... OH, I don't want to scare you.

There is no such thing as “intra-species” change that is different than “inter-species” change. Change within a population is change that is “intra-species”, but will in separate populations eventually BECOME “inter-species” change when the change is so great that they can no longer reproduce fertile offspring.

Just as the changes to Latin that made it into Italian and Spanish were all intra-language changes, until the languages were so distinct that people could no longer understand eachother; then the changes were obviously inter-language changes.

Based upon the observation that change in DNA of a population is INEVITABLE in all species over any significant portion of time - what is going to STOP this change?

If genetic change has “a negative feedback effect” such that it “will cause inability to reproduce” - where is ANY example of such?

What species has ever changed in its DNA so much that it could no longer reproduce?

And if your “answer” holds any water AT ALL, why would bacteria have an error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed during stress?

Wouldn’t you think that such would accelerate the point where they change so much in their genetics that they would “dead end” and die off?

If such was even slightly reasonable, why would they have such a gene, and have it expressed during times of high stress?

Do you presume that bacteria, despite all observations, engage in behaviors that are suicidal?