Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution
CROsoft
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 94 (5427)
02-24-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by BoneLady
02-23-2002 10:08 AM


How are you Deb? Want to debate specificity and information?
I posted a reply to Pat on Thrinaxodon and monotremes, hair and the diaphragm, which he has not yet replied to.
If you wish, I can post the message again, it being my most "up to date" (as you said) argument on the subject). Addittionally, probability suggests that the post will have slipped off the end by now.
The reason I chose to post one reply rather than two was for the simple reason that you and Pat were chirping the same tune and causing my to opt for the circuitous method of replying to you both.
I've been busy with things other than debating recently which is why I haven't been raising the dust over at your place. I'm happy to debate if you/Pat want to reply to that message however.
Btw, I haven't forgotten about Poikilotherm's yeast gene duplication "information increase"(
[This message has been edited by CROsoft, 02-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by BoneLady, posted 02-23-2002 10:08 AM BoneLady has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2002 1:42 AM CROsoft has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 94 (5435)
02-25-2002 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by CROsoft
02-24-2002 10:52 PM


Ummm, CROsoft? This is the EVC Forum. It would be great if you could respond substantively to posters here rather than dragging in old arguments from another forum (although if you'd like to start a new thread with the full context of the old arguments, that might be interesting). If you don't think the level of debate here is good enough for some reason, you can always go over to the Internet Infidels Evo/Cre forum and try your arguments on them.
However, in the interim, I am still awaiting your definition of the terms you keep throwing about. I'm especially interested in your definition of "information" and how this applies to "specified complexity". AFAIK Dembski's SC argument was based on a mathematic/statistical probability analysis that let a given object be declared "designed" because the probability of it - based on an ill-defined complexity scale he invented for the purpose - arising naturally was vanishingly small. IOW, there was no linkage with genetics as you insist. Before we can even START to discuss your posts, you need to spend some time "bringing us up to speed" on what you're discussing - I keep getting the feeling I'm coming in on the middle of a conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by CROsoft, posted 02-24-2002 10:52 PM CROsoft has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by CROsoft, posted 02-25-2002 7:16 AM Quetzal has replied

  
CROsoft
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 94 (5445)
02-25-2002 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
02-25-2002 1:42 AM


Ummm, CROsoft? This is the EVC Forum. It would be great if you could respond substantively to posters here rather than dragging in old arguments from another forum (although if you'd like to start a new thread with the full context of the old arguments, that might be interesting). If you don't think the level of debate here is good enough for some reason, you can always go over to the Internet Infidels Evo/Cre forum and try your arguments on them.
Sorry about that. Did you read the message I was replying to? "BoneLady", from another forum asked about a previous debate, and I replied that if she wished, I could post my answer again on that board. So, in fairness to me, it was not I who dragged the argument in. The level of debate is not too low here (at least not this particular one). However, I have not been getting into grande debates recently due to lack of time. Since a few of you were asking for an elaboration, I shall attempt to make myself a little clearer on a few of the points I made.
However, in the interim, I am still awaiting your definition of the terms you keep throwing about. I'm especially interested in your definition of "information" and how this applies to "specified complexity". AFAIK Dembski's SC argument was based on a mathematic/statistical probability analysis that let a given object be declared "designed" because the probability of it - based on an ill-defined complexity scale he invented for the purpose - arising naturally was vanishingly small. IOW, there was no linkage with genetics as you insist. Before we can even START to discuss your posts, you need to spend some time "bringing us up to speed" on what you're discussing - I keep getting the feeling I'm coming in on the middle of a conversation.
Yes, I'll elaborate on those points. I assume you probably already know; but I might just add here that I am not a great molecular biology or genetics expert, so I ask you to keep that in mind if you encounter errors, and I'll be quite happy to be corrected.
Sayonara,
CROsoft.
------------------
CRO technologies. Little things, great things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2002 1:42 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2002 7:57 AM CROsoft has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 94 (5446)
02-25-2002 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by CROsoft
02-25-2002 7:16 AM


CROsoft: No problem. Actually, I thought the little I saw of the argument you and Bonelady referenced might be interesting if you-all wanted to repost the key points here. I probably should have included Bonelady in that response. Apologies - I wasn't singling you out.
I await your elaboration on the terms. The reason I would like a working definition of the terminology you're using is that the complexity, information, genetics, etc arguments are, well, complex. Without knowing which of the many different versions of the various bits you are arguing, it's hard to make an intelligent response. Post away!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by CROsoft, posted 02-25-2002 7:16 AM CROsoft has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by BoneLady, posted 02-25-2002 9:27 AM Quetzal has replied

  
BoneLady
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 94 (5453)
02-25-2002 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Quetzal
02-25-2002 7:57 AM


Apologies to everyone here--I didn't mean to try and divert the topic in any way. It's just that CROsoft had promised a reply to some lengthy discussion several weeks ago, and then he simply...vanished. I was lurking here and his presence took me by surprise, given that he seemed to have not finished something he started elsewhere.
To CROsoft: since you apparently posted something so far down the board that people were unlikely to see it (anything more than about a third of the way down is effectively "abandoned"), you should repost over there. Please reply *over there*, and not here.
Once again, my apologies to the board.
BoneLady
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
CROsoft: No problem. Actually, I thought the little I saw of the argument you and Bonelady referenced might be interesting if you-all wanted to repost the key points here. I probably should have included Bonelady in that response. Apologies - I wasn't singling you out.
I await your elaboration on the terms. The reason I would like a working definition of the terminology you're using is that the complexity, information, genetics, etc arguments are, well, complex. Without knowing which of the many different versions of the various bits you are arguing, it's hard to make an intelligent response. Post away!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2002 7:57 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2002 9:42 AM BoneLady has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 94 (5455)
02-25-2002 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by BoneLady
02-25-2002 9:27 AM


Hi BoneLady (great pseudonym)!
If you'd like to post a url to the debate you referenced, I for one think the argument sounds interesting. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by BoneLady, posted 02-25-2002 9:27 AM BoneLady has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by BoneLady, posted 02-25-2002 9:56 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
BoneLady
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 94 (5456)
02-25-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Quetzal
02-25-2002 9:42 AM


Thanks!
Unfortunately, the mb is one of those one-page boards where old messages scroll off the bottom into the ether. The exchanges are long gone, now. If he reposts, I can link.
At any rate, CROsoft never actually addressed my main question, which was about a quote by Berger and McHenry (IIRC) that he tried to distort into saying that australopithecines were merely chimp-like apes and/or not bipedal and/or not ancestral, or something like that (perhaps he kept that post; I didn't). He has steadfastly avoided addressing that issue (since my formal training, such as it is, has been in human evolution, I am most interested in addressing that issue). The one he's referring to was whether scientists can identify and classify extinct organisms based only upon skeletal evidence. I only archived one or two posts of that exchange, so some context will be lost, unless CROsoft has more.
At any rate, we should see if he sticks around here....
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi BoneLady (great pseudonym)!
If you'd like to post a url to the debate you referenced, I for one think the argument sounds interesting. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2002 9:42 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 24 of 94 (5480)
02-25-2002 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by toff
02-22-2002 4:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
Firstly, a couple of definitions, for the purposes of this thread:
- 'micro' evolution is evolution which occurs within a species/kind; it might operate to make lions faster, over succeeding generations, or give leopards moer spots; it can never produce a leopard that is not a leopard.
- 'macro' evolution is evolution which changes species/kinds, creating new ones, which are incapable of breeding with their parent species/kind.

Without a definition of Meso Evo as I do not object, by definition then, thIs would land me with, ... reading Wright's review of Goldschmdit. So far nothing but reading. Ok
[b] [QUOTE] Now, if you are a creationist who (like most, it seems) accepts that 'micro' evolution is not only possible, but observed, but that 'macro' evolution is not possible, could you please explain why?
[/b][/QUOTE]
Becuase I was not permitted to investigate "non-adaptive" morphology of snakes at Cornell and was prevented from telling the evolutionist President what was not permitted by evolutionists on the campus and later is a story no one wants to hear bit by bit. Alpha + Beta keratin could be Fisher's adaptive oversight given SEM of species criticisms however but that does not sensu stricto implicate sexual selection in the frog evoked response.
[b] [QUOTE]What is there in 'macro' evolution that is impossible, given that 'micro' evolution is possible? [/b][/QUOTE]
Obviously, NOT the accumulation of adaptations, even the most perfect case paramaterized. So far orthogenetic process that overgrow benefit to the species are not possible in the theory without the discrepency appearing. Should questions and not answers make the difference disappear?
[b] [QUOTE] Why cannot a large number of 'micro' evolutionary changes result in a 'macro' evolutionary change?[/b][/QUOTE]
This seems to be SJ Gould position and I have not answered yet for Wright's "pit" as seen in snake morphology.
[b] [QUOTE] Oh, and if you're going to cite some sort of inter-species boundary which evolution cannot cross, please cite some sort of evidence for such a thing. "We've never seen it happen" is not evidence that it cannot, or does not, happen.[/b][/QUOTE]
Certainly you are correct that the gradient here is not a simple denial but funny that Mayr made it a simple affirmation.
Seems to me the problem if there is such and the way these questions are worded doesnt seem to be much of one but that the internal factors that would not be STP etc should not be relegated to talking about change only in the absense of diffusion which is what I did for logical stictness. There is not a problem to accumulate changes but that means some randomness accumulates as well by Wright's criticism of Fisher (feel comfortable to side with Fisher but I would not recommend so answering in the detail of Maxwell's telephone) which ipso facto supports Dembski's GOD and intelligent design in the pattern so the process of questioning in a biparental manner (creationist or evolutionist) is false to ask the question EVEN in the Environement of Evolution post 1925 under no change but that observed by Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by toff, posted 02-22-2002 4:30 AM toff has not replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6239 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 94 (5500)
02-25-2002 9:26 PM


Hmmm... Last time I saw CROSoft on True Seekers, he'd been challenged to tell us whether Thrinaxodon was a mammal or a reptile, and the criteria by which he made the decision.
Then he was gone.
He backed out on a lot of questions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by CROsoft, posted 02-25-2002 9:58 PM The Barbarian has not replied

  
CROsoft
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 94 (5502)
02-25-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by The Barbarian
02-25-2002 9:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by The Barbarian:
Hmmm... Last time I saw CROSoft on True Seekers, he'd been challenged to tell us whether Thrinaxodon was a mammal or a reptile, and the criteria by which he made the decision.
Then he was gone.
He backed out on a lot of questions.

That's not true. I debated the subject for a large period of time, and made many points which were not answered. I wont go into them again, since this is not the right board.
As I previously stated, I was only "passing through town" on this board. However, I shall endeavor to elaborate on the specifics in short time.
------------------
CRO technologies. Little things, great things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by The Barbarian, posted 02-25-2002 9:26 PM The Barbarian has not replied

  
CROsoft
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 94 (5512)
02-26-2002 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
02-23-2002 2:27 PM


Sorry about the registration, but I'm reluctant to make this a fully open board. Registering reflects some minimum level of interest and dedication to and seriousness about the topic.
I think registering is a good idea, and my intention was not to throw a shadow over its usefulness. Rather, it was late at night when I stumbled onto this board and saw the "microevolution v macroevolution" thread. I decided to give a quick reply before "hitting the sack", but almost decided otherwise upon my realization of having to register.
But I'm not sure whether to answer you. Will you be "passing through town" again? Given the uncertainty of a response, I'll keep this short.
Yes, I'll be elaborating soon, since a number of individuals have requested me to. In fact, following the completion of this post, I will start.
Microevolution easily adds information. Gene duplication is just one example, but it's a simple one so I'll use it. Possible sequence of events: a) dividing error leads to a gene appearing twice in offspring, instead of just once; b) subsequent dividing error causes change in the duplicated gene in offspring of the next generation; c) organisms in this third generation receive the benefit or detriment of the protein produced as a result of the new information in the modified duplicate gene.
Remember that I am talking about observed microevolution. That is, all observed microevolutionary changes. I am not dealing here with what theoretically could happen to a duplicated gene (that's the subject of another debate). My intention was to cast some light upon why Creationists believe microevolution occurs, while asserting how observed microevolution extrapolated in time cannot produce macroevolution. It was my claim that evolutionists therefore cannot point to the microevolutionary changes which have been observed, and then asseverate that these can be extrapolated in time to produce macroevolution.
I also maintain that gene duplication itself does not increase genetic information. True, it increases genetic material, but that is another thing altogether.
Imagine we have a program which can produce one of 3 symbols, A, B, or C. As we wait for the next symbol we are uncertain as to which one it will be. After a symbol appears, our uncertainty decreases, and we have received some information. Thus, information is a decrease in uncertainty.
If, suppose, each time the program selects a symbol, it displays the symbol twice, we are not recieving twice as much information. We are recieving the same information twice. This is what gene duplication does.
To my knowledge, all observed mutations which have occurred in the duplicate gene have decreased specified complexity. So, while the product of the new gene may have aquired an affinity for a new "molecule", it is invariably at the expense of protein specificity. That is, rather than increasing specificity, they have lost specificity, so they can bind to "molecules" they could not have bound to before.
Respected molecular biologist, Tom Schneider, in his "Glossary for molecular information" defines information as "The decrease in uncertainty of a receiver or molecular machine in going from the before state to the after state. See http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/glossary.html#information
He says with regard to specificity; "Poor Terminology! [Sorry Tom] The term is ill defined. It has been used to refer to livers (tissue specificity), energy, binding patterns and other mutually inconsistent concepts. Recommendation: use the appropriate precise term (energy, bits, information etc.) instead."
I'll elaborate on why I asseverated that there is a relationship between specificity and information in my next post.
Thanks for the patience, all, but I've been quite busy lately.
Kind regards,
CROsoft.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 02-23-2002 2:27 PM Percy has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 28 of 94 (5521)
02-26-2002 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by CROsoft
02-22-2002 11:28 PM


Compared to a free-living single celled organism aren't
all of our (human) cells more specific and of restricted
function ?
As far as I can see::
Mutations can and do occur.
These mutations change the allelle frequencies in populations
and are accepted as leading to speciation.
Split a population into different environments and the allele
frequencies will be different within a few generations
(Gallapogus finches).
Given sufficient time, why could this NOT lead to two populations
which could not interbreed?
Horses and donkeys CAN inter-breed, but the offspring are sterile.
Doesn't this suggest that they are diverging, and will in generations
to come no longer be able to inter-breed at all ? I know..I know
unsubstatiated opinion question begging type of stuff ... but still ..
If macro-evolution has NOT occurred in the past, why are there
genetic similarities between organisms with similarities in outward
appearance ?
Why are all animal cells structures in the same way, but virus cells
are not ? Virus cells have been found on meteorites, and may have
an extra-terrestrial (I mean that literally NOT BEM's) origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CROsoft, posted 02-22-2002 11:28 PM CROsoft has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 9:11 AM Peter has replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6239 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 94 (5531)
02-26-2002 8:33 AM


[/b]Here was a particularly good one posed by Pat that CROSoft danced around, but steadfastly refused to answer: -(paraphrasing)
[/b]"Suppose there is an animal, that has fur, can to a degree be warm-blooded, and has a diaphragm. It also has reptillian skeletal features, has a single cloaca for elimination and reproduction, and has a sprawling reptilian posture.
Is this a transitional? "
We'll never know what CROSoft thinks. Or maybe he's had time to go learn a little about biology since he ducked out of that one. How about it, CROSoft? There's a lot of people with a lot of questions you ducked out on who'd like to know.[/b]

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 30 of 94 (5535)
02-26-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peter
02-26-2002 7:00 AM


[QUOTE][b]Virus cells have been found on meteorites, and may have
an extra-terrestrial (I mean that literally NOT BEM's) origin.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Cite please.
Also, virii are not composed of cells.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 7:00 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 10:09 AM gene90 has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 31 of 94 (5539)
02-26-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by gene90
02-26-2002 9:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][b]Virus cells have been found on meteorites, and may have
an extra-terrestrial (I mean that literally NOT BEM's) origin.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Cite please.
Also, virii are not composed of cells.

I was sure I'd read that somewhere, but can't find anything so
I'll retract that.
There ARE those who beleive that virii come to earth in the 'space dust' from comet tails, though it's a bit controversial.
The main point I was trying to make with virii in general, is that
they are life forms, but very different ones.
Was that the only thing you had a problem with in that post ?
[This message has been edited by Peter, 02-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 9:11 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 10:37 AM Peter has not replied
 Message 33 by mark24, posted 02-26-2002 4:47 PM Peter has replied
 Message 54 by thunder_daemon, posted 12-03-2002 8:09 PM Peter has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024