Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2017 2:45 PM
383 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,244 Year: 18,850/21,208 Month: 1,609/3,111 Week: 404/707 Day: 100/78 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
CRR
Member
Posts: 430
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 196 of 202 (811110)
06-05-2017 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
06-05-2017 7:51 AM


Re: The "foram" subphylum and speciation
You don't have sperm and egg sex, but haploid duplicates the nucleus then divides into two gamets which then combine with other gametes to produce a diploid cell.

Thanks for explaining that.

Yes bring in Pelycodus again. As I showed before the difference between dogs of the SAME species is greater than the difference in the two varieties in the Pelycodus example. Even if it is speciation it does not show whether this was due to microevolution or macroevolution. It would at best show speciation within the kind which most Creationists have no problem with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 7:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 9:08 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 197 of 202 (811114)
06-05-2017 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by CRR
06-05-2017 8:16 AM


The "foram" subphylum and speciation and Pelycodus
You don't have sperm and egg sex, but haploid duplicates the nucleus then divides into two gamets which then combine with other gametes to produce a diploid cell.

Thanks for explaining that.

You're welcome. This is another example of sex for Jar's thread, although it is about as asexual as sex can get.

Yes bring in Pelycodus again. As I showed before the difference between dogs of the SAME species is greater than the difference in the two varieties in the Pelycodus example. ...

Indeed, so here is the article and image again for reference:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


... Even if it is speciation it does not show whether this was due to microevolution or macroevolution. ...

It is due to microevolution -- ALL evolution is due to microevolution. The difference between micro and macro is like the difference in looking at the same object with a microscope and a macroscope: with the microscope you can see individual fine details but not the whole object, with the macroscope you can see how all those details come together in a picture of the whole object.

This is why I say when you look at one branch (Notharctus nunienus for example) and trace it backwards to Pelycodus ralstoni you will see anagenesis, and when you look at the other branch ( Notharctus venticolus) and trace it back to Pelycodus ralstoni you will also see anagenesis. Both of them include Pelycodus jarrovii as a common ancestor population.

It is only when you see them dividing that you see cladogenesis. This is what Arnold and Parker would have seen in the foram record -- two lines of descent from a single common ancestor species.

It would be nice to have a picture of that, but unfortunately that is not provided. Maybe you email to Dr Parker can elicit this information.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 8:16 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 198 of 202 (811162)
06-05-2017 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by CRR
05-31-2017 8:02 AM


Minimum Macro
CRR writes:

There is no one canonical definition of micro- and macro-evolution. Elsewhere I have suggested that Durston's definitions might be used.

quote:

Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.

Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.


Let's look at what might be a minimum of "statistically significant" functional information.

1) A mutation or mutations gives an existing gene a new allele with a new function, changing the phenotype.

2) A duplication adds an extra copy of an existing coding gene that makes the same protein as the original, but does change the phenotype in that it increases the expression of the protein.

3) A duplication adds an extra copy of an existing coding gene which then mutates, diverging from the original, and adding a function which changes the phenotype. (2 followed by 1)

Which, if any, would involve a statistically significant increase in functional information?

Edited by bluegenes, : missing word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by CRR, posted 05-31-2017 8:02 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 5:03 PM bluegenes has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 430
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 199 of 202 (811294)
06-06-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by bluegenes
06-05-2017 12:47 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
Durston in the link previously given says that both "statistically significant" and "functional information" are measurable and provides links. Go back and re-read my previous posts.

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2017 12:47 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2017 6:19 PM CRR has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 200 of 202 (811303)
06-06-2017 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by CRR
06-06-2017 5:03 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
CRR writes:

Durston in the link previously given says that both "statistically significant" and "functional information" are measurable and provides links. Go back and re-read my previous posts.

I've already read them, and it's clear from them that you don't understand the Hazen paper on functional information that you linked to, because if you did, you'd understand that Durston does not have a way of measuring functional information. He just assumes, wrongly, that only one protein family can perform a given function, so he comes up with figures that have nothing to do with reality, or to do with the Hazen paper, which he is well known for continually mentioning, and continually misinterpreting.

It's well known that unrelated proteins can perform the same functions.

Now that you know this, you can write to Durston, tell him you're a creationist, and tell him what he has got wrong. Currently, he's misleading a lot of people like you.

To calculate the functional information in the examples in my last post, it would be necessary to find out the proportion of all proteins in sequence space that would perform the same function, and that's not easy to do. Durston has never done this for any specific function, I can assure you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 5:03 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 9:49 PM bluegenes has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 430
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 201 of 202 (811309)
06-06-2017 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by bluegenes
06-06-2017 6:19 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
Fell free to contact Durston yourself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2017 6:19 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2017 10:33 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 202 of 202 (811314)
06-06-2017 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by CRR
06-06-2017 9:49 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
CRR writes:

Fell free to contact Durston yourself.

Why would I want to? He hasn't misled me. I assumed you'd want to put one of your fellow creationists right, now you understand his mistake.

Or do you understand?

I explained it about a week ago in Message 172, yet you keep on referring to him. Strange.

bluegenes in msg172 writes:

Kirk Durston makes the mistake of assuming that only proteins in an existing protein family will perform a given function, then estimating the variants of that family that would perform the function, then subtracting that from the total of all sequences. That's a good way of getting a very low proportion of the total, and therefore very high "functional information" content. That is then made into an improbability argument against evolution which appears to convince some creationists, but not biologists who know that unrelated proteins can perform the same functions.

I assume that you didn't know that last bit in bold before, otherwise you should have seen where Durston was going wrong. Now that you do know, are you going to continue to refer to him?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 9:49 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017