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.
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.
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.
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?