Challenge to Creationists: Given enough time, what demonstrated mechanism would prevent a species from continuing to evolve to a new genera?

Patience OldPilot, I have a life to lead outside of Y!A.

[edit]

"What demonstrated mechanism would prevent a species from continuing to evolve to a new genera? Given enough time."

Rather we should ask what demonstrated mechanism will allow a species to evolve into a new kind? Both species and genera are somewhat arbitrary divisions. Different species are not supposed to be able to breed but many of them do given the opportunity and right circumstances. There are even some cross genera hybrids showing that the usual taxonomic divisions do not correspond well the biological reality.

Nevertheless let us assume for the purposes of this discussion that true species are not able to breed even given the opportunity and that a genera is a collection of related species and we will assume this is a kind.

So what demonstrated mechanisms of evolution do we have?

One of the best and often given examples of evolution is the Peppered Moth. This moth has alleles for light and dark colours. Initially the population had a majority of light coloured moths. Over a period of time the proportions were observed to change so the dark colour became the majority. Later still it changed again and the light colour became majority.

So what changed? No new genes developed, not even a new allele. Without new genetic information appearing there is no way these moths can become a new kind. The demonstrated mechanism, change in allele frequency in a population over time, does not have the creative power to produce a new kind.

Let's look at another example; Lenski's long term E Coli experiment. This was specifically set up to produce evolution and Lenski has calculated that by now every possible point mutation should have occurred at least once. Generally the results have been disappointing. No new genes have appeared but some have been lost. The most spectacular result has been the development of the ability to use citrate in an oxygen rich (oxic) environment. But wait! E Coli already had the ability to use citrate, but it is normally turned off oxic environments. Gene sequencing has shown that copying errors made extra copies that were not under normal regulatory control so they could operate in oxic environments. While this proved beneficial in the laboratory cultures it has still not produced any new genetic information. The bacteria remain E Coli and the demonstrated mechanism again does not have the power to produce a new kind.

So what about mutations that produce a new allele? The example provided by DrJ is the Sickle Cell allele. This is unquestionably harmful but is not quite as lethal as malaria in affected areas. This has allowed this allele to reach a small but apparently stable proportion in malaria endemic areas. But will this produce a new genera/kind? Possibly a new allele will result in a new species through producing sterility in cross breeds but I see no prospect of it producing a new genera/kind.

So what other demonstrated mechanisms are there? I know of several proposed or inferred mechanisms that could possible work but none of those are demonstrated to to actually occur.

One possible mechanism that has been demonstrated in Lenski's experiment is loss of genetic material. So far there is no indication that this has produced a new kind of bacteria but potentially if continued it could do so. The ability of E Coli to use citrate only in anoxic environments is one of the diagnostic characteristics of E Coli so it could be argued that the new strain is in fact a new "species", although Lenski has never made that claim. Since bacteria don't reproduce sexually the species concept doesn't really apply to them.

If this mechanism could be demonstrated to operate in multicellular animals then possibly it could produce a new species, reproductively isolated. However this would still be a subset of the genera/kind and not a new kind.

So where is there a demonstrated mechanism of evolution that could produce a new genera/kind?

There are no transitional fossils, not one and humans didn't evolve from monkeys because the motor flagellum is too complex not to have a designer and something cannot come from nothing and Darwin renounced his atheism on his death bed and atheists are rebelling against god because they want to sin and you can't make a Boeing 747 from a tornado on a beach with a watch that had to have a designer.

Hope this helps.

Shifting the Burden Fallacy...

If you claim evolution from species to a new genera, the burden is on you to demonstrate a mechanism. One major objection to your notion is species fall below genus in the taxonomic hierarchy, you are looking at it backward.

Natural Selection has only ever been shown to mediate over variations within existing species and the formation of the occasional subspecies.

Genus is a higher level on the taxonomic tree and appears to be mediated by epigenetic factors in the cytoplasm and not due to natural selection (with or without mutations) That being said, both metabolic and morphological changes due to modification of epigenetic factors appear to have been triggered by environmental alterations. In some cases, Ratcliff's fungi for example, these changes were reversible within about 12 generations. As noted in a previous post, experiments in cross species cloning have produced creatures with identical chromosomes and genes that morphologically qualify as different genus. This would stand as an objective validation of the hypothesis that genus is mediated by epigenetic factors and not chromosomal genes. Since those genes that mediate changes within the species and formation of novel species are not related to those morphological variations for genus classification there is no bridge to allow for what you suggest.

The formation of a Genus appears to be a product of acquired alterations within epigenetic factors driven by environmental factors.

In closing, Speciation can and does occur( in fact it is is an observed phenomena) that is driven by selection of heritable traits found on Chromosomal genes.

Gross morphological features associated with genus, appears to be driven by epigenetic factors, and as result selection acting on chromosomal genes do not appear to have an influence on genus formation. Observed changes in epigenetic factors have resulted from environmental pressures and so it appears genus formation is the product acquired epigenetic traits. Because this appears to be environmentally driven, common ancestry is not a necessary factor.

Put differently, instead of a tree formation, and small changes along that tree producing tree with different genus appearing as tree branches

X (Shared ancestor)

Branch

(Gorilla-Papio-Pan-Homo-Pongo)

You have five identical blades of grass planted in different environments and those five genus appear

independently of the other four due to environment driven epigenetic changes. All descended from X but none related to each other:

X -Gorilla

X-Papio

X-Pan

X-Homo

X-Pongo

If nothing else this model is far more consistent with what is observed in the fossil record.

This "challenge" started when CRR, a known Creationist, asked the OP to post this question. But since he now hasn't shown up, let's show you what he has said about speciation (which he claims he accepts) and how speciation fits into his evolutionary views. But be warned, CRR has called evolution a "false religion". We will assume that the below accurately represents the views of most Creationists.

" Modern human, Neanderthal, and Homo Erectus are all descendents of Adam and Eve and we are all varieties within the one human kind."

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150...

The above shows the muddled views of Creationists. We have 3 species mentioned, with one (Homo erectus) assumed to be the ancestor of the other two. Kinds don't exist in biology. The time line is off as well, but then CRR has to believe in a young earth, Adam and Eve, and the bottleneck of "Noah's Ark" .... quite a balancing act, and as you can see it fails in his statement. He has to ignore the word "species" in his statement as well as gloss over HOW the various "varieties" came about. Also glossed over is the time needed for this. I can also document that CRR has used different taxonomic levels for his "kinds"... are they species, genera, perhaps families? ....or is it better not to define "kinds" (since they don't exist anyway in modern biology) so one can move the goalposts whenever needed?

"Creationists generally believe that God created the existing kinds and then there has been speciation within that kind. This is how the original horse kind has produced horses, zebras, and donkeys. "

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141...

I wonder if Creationists have read, as CRR has and used, that the "badger kind" on the mythical "Noah's Ark" produced 10 different species and also four different genera of animals!!!!! This is from a Creationist website: http://creation.com/badger

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141...

So it will be interesting if this Creationist or any other that attempts to argue from a semblance of a scientific position does show up to see if they have any evidence that most Creationists accept speciation, and how two "badger kind" individuals speciated to 10 species and four genera in a couple of thousand years, and why that can't be the same situation for humans and our primate relatives from a common ancestor or any higher group of organisms today thus "proving" "macroevolution".

One would have to postulate different processes going on for "microevolution" versus "macroevolution" if one supports speciation but not higher taxa... processes which are unknown to science at the present time.

Yes, I know. You can follow this discussion at:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150...

Read my posts and CRR's posts, including the Comments. Have fun.

You are using words not one of them understands.

Limitations within the DNA code (as well as the ambiguous term "species").

It's sort of like you can't get blood out of a turnip, no matter how long you try.

Do some research on the fruit fly experiments where evolutionary scientists desperately tried to "evolve" fruit flies with all sorts of torturous mutations. End the end, all they were left with were the same species of fruit fly.

The problem is like this: consider one species to be "I LIKE ICE CREAM" and another species to be "BASEBALL IS FUN". Each has its own code, and there is some overlap (e.g. both species contain the letters A and I), but there is no way, no matter how much time you have, to rearrange the letters of the first species to get the second species.

Also, the word species is so ambiguous. For example, dogs and wolves are considered different species, although they can mate and have fertile offspring. Yet we are told dogs "evolved" from wolves.

The only reason deep time was invented was because it had to be invented to cover the fact that it was impossible to observe evolution: evolution happens so slow, it can never be observed. Here's the real truth on the matter. If the Bible suggested the earth was billions of years old, but evolution required only thousands of years, you would see the same scientists present as factual all the overwhelming evidence for the earth being thousands of years old rather billions, and label anyone who said the earth was billions of years old a complete nutcase.

Now would you like to be an expert on the theory of evolution and how it works? You can be. Just continue reading.

The fundamental key to having a complete understanding of the theory of evolution can be found within the first ten seconds of an episode from the slavishly pro-evolution TV series “David Attenborough’s Natural Curiosities” (see vid below). There the famous naturalist unwittingly spills the beans with this question: “How did two small animals ... **change** our understanding of evolution?” (** emphasis added).

Well who would have guessed? It turns out that theory of evolution itself has its own built-in survival mechanism: evolution. It evolves as necessary to adapt to ever new contradictory information. When evidence again and again is found against the failed theory, it just maneuvers, dodges, weaves and “changes” as required to accommodate the new evidence. Below are some examples.

Almost immediately after Darwin wrote his nonsense, evolutionists touted fossils of the strange looking coelacanth fish as proof of evolution. All were told the 100+ -million year old seagoing vertebrate was a clearly recognizable precursor to animals that walked on land based on its obvious foot-like fins--that is until 1938 when they found one swimming around in the Indian Ocean. It was just a weird-looking fish. With any other theory, especially with such a setback, scientists would at least consider the prospect that the theory is fundamentally flawed and maybe should be relegated to the dust heap of other failed theories like bloodletting and the flat-earth theory--but not with the theory of evolution. All you do is “change [the] understanding of evolution” which is code for “evolve” the theory. (Since everything else evolves, why not the theory itself?) So scientists came up with the idea of “living fossils”. They changed the theory from all animals evolving to only those that had not met an “evolutionary dead end” where they were so perfectly evolved, they longer needed to evolve any further. (Huh? So even if the theory is true, how do you know with certainty that all animals haven’t now met their evolutionary dead end, and therefore there is no more evolution? You’re not supposed to ask questions like that.)

Later as more and more fossils were dug up it became more and more obvious that the fossil record was NOT replete with transitional-intermediates as theorized by Darwin, but rather if anything, showed animals NOT evolving; staying relatively the same for supposedly “millions of years”. Such was described as the “trademark secret of paleontologists” by famed evolutionists such as Dr. Stephen Gould. Again, not a problem for the ever evolving theory of evolution; Dr. Gould and others changed the theory and invented the idea of “Punctuated Equilibrium” where evolution happens so fast when it does happen, it rarely or can’t be found in the fossil record. What once was a “problem” for evolution, with the writing of a new book, instantly became “proof” for evolution. Now NOT finding transitional-intermediates in the fossil record was proof of the theory (huh?).

A more recent example of the dodging and twisting was when soft tissue was accidentally found in dinosaur bones in 2005 by Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Scientists for decades had told everyone that there was no sense looking for soft tissue in dinosaur bones because they were so old, it would be impossible for such to be found in them. Although at first mainstream scientists dismissed her evidence as faulty, with more and more testing and it being determined that in actuality, soft tissue is the rule rather than the exception in dino bones, the theory “changed” once again and asserted that soft tissue in dinosaur bones CAN continue to exist for even hundreds of millions of years after the death of the animal. Thus at one time what was proof that a bone was young, now is also proof that it may be old--all according to the latest version of the theory. But that’s not all.

After soft tissue was found in dino bones, some inquisitive testers tested the bones for carbon-14. Because of the relative very short half-life of the C14 isotope, no remains of dead animals should have any C14 in them if they have been dead over 100,000 years. Well guess what. C14 testing of dino bones routinely shows the isotope in them revealing them to be 40,000 years old or less. As with the soft-tissue problem above, most mainstream scientists have initially dismissed and ignored this evidence; however, this problem continues to linger and is becoming more and more problematic. For one thing, dino bones can be bought online and sent to labs for date testing for only a few hundred dollars, so that almost anyone with a little cash can see the evidence directly for themselves--without ever having to even leave their own house! (See vid below of some who have done just that.) Some scientists, recognizing the problem isn’t just going away, have already started to “change” the theory again. In desperation, a few are asserting circular-reasoning nonsense: C14 works for mammoth and saber-tooth tiger fossils because they only died out a few thousand years ago, but it doesn’t work for dinosaur fossils because they died out millions of years ago (again, huh?).

Knowing how the theory really works, one can easily surmise what would happen if a fossilized T-Rex sitting in a rocking chair, smoking a pipe and reading “The Saturday Evening Post” was found. The next day headlines from all the science journals would read, “Startling New Evidence Shows that Rocking Chairs, Smoking Pipes and even ‘The Saturday Evening Post’ Are at Least 65-Million Years Old!”

So now you know how Darwin’s failed theory works and continues to survive even to this day. The theory of evolution itself evolves. Because of that, it is impossible to disprove the theory to an avid evolutionist. No matter what credible negative evidence you presented, some sort of ad hoc explanation would be invented to counter the evidence, and the theory “changed” accordingly.

Many, many people do not believe in the theory of evolution because of the mountain of overwhelming evidence against it (maybe even most people if they didn’t have to deal with inevitable ridicule--or even losing their job--for expressing their true beliefs on the matter). There are too many flaws in the theory to cover in this puny forum. For those interested in a more exhaustive list, I would suggest seeing the appropriate section on the apologeticspress.org website. In the meantime, enjoy the vids below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbU44DT_224

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvWdWbLcJvQ