'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution

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.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? What is there in 'macro' evolution that is impossible, given that 'micro' evolution is possible? Why cannot a large number of 'micro' evolutionary changes result in a 'macro' evolutionary change?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.

Toff: I think you will be incredibly lucky to get any response from the resident creationists. Most of us (and no doubt you as well) have posted the same question dozens (if not hundreds) of times, and never received a response.My favorite restatment is:given microevolution, what is the barrier that prevents heritable variation, random mutation and natural selection over time from producing daughter species so far removed from their ancestors as to constitute new taxa?Good luck...

Just an interesting note (and I cannot find the news article
anywhere), but a famous(ish) british author called Jilly Cooper
had a goat on her farm that gave birth to a sheep, and she doesn't
keep sheep.Don't know whether sheep and goats can interbreed either.

I was traversing the vacuity of cyberspace when I stumbled upon your message. After reading that your question had been asked on a number of occasions, and that your lack of a substantial answer remained, I thought it necessary to make a few points as I "passed through town".(Never mind the fact that I almost declined the opportunity after finding that I had to register...)Observed microevolution (neutral or information loss) is incapable of turning a fish into a philosopher (information gain).In other words, define things as you will; observed microevolution has not increased the specified complexity (thus information) of an organism. Therefore; observed microevolution (lots of losses) extrapolated in time, does not produce the requirements of The General Theory of Evolution.Periodically removing money from your bank account will not increase it.1) Yes, beneficial mutations occur.
2) Yes, speciation occurs (polyploidy etc).
3) Yes, natural selection occurs.1) Sometimes a defect can be an advantage. A beneficial mutation does not necessitate information increase. In fact, no beneficial mutation has been observed to increase the genetic information/specified complexity.2) Lots of information loss can result in the production a new species. All observed speciation is either the result of loss of information, or no gain. This is diametrically opposite to neo-Darwinian evolution. Polyploidy does not create new information, as the General Theory of Evolution requires. It simply repeats existing information. The reason the reciever becomes a new species (cannot interbreed with its parents) is simply because of the difference in the number of chromosomes. Remember; more is not always better, and does not necessarily increase information. Remember; more is not always better, and does not necessarily increase information.3) In the words of Dr Richard Dawkins; "Natural selection can only subtract". Natural selection is not a magical process which evolves the fitter organisms. It is the common sense fact that less fit organisms are more likely to die. As such, it is incapable of creating anything new; it can only delete existing organisms. Dr Dawkins went on to assert that "mutation can add". He is yet to produce one example of a mutation which increased specified complexity and information.The very concept of random mutations decreasing randomness is not particularly logical. Information is a measure of the decrease in randomness/uncertainty at a reciever or molecular machine. Uncertainty is a logarithmic measure of the number of choices a reciever (or molecular machine) has. Not one mutation has ever been observed to increase the specified complexity and information (as defined above) of a genome.Gene duplication and polyploidy do not increase genetic information and specified complexity. They simply repeat existing information. A duplicated gene/chromosome adds no more information than the same statement doubled does. A duplicated gene/chromosome adds no more information than the same statement doubled does.All mutations observed to have occurred in the doubled gene have not increased its specified complexity/information. Any mutation which decreases specified complexity is not the same kind of mutation which caused the specificity originally. Specified complexity is complexity which specifies something. It is therefore information. Any mutation which decreases specified complexity therefore decreases information.For this reason, observed microevolution is incapable of evolving a mushroom into a man. As such, it cannot be extrapolated in time to produce the process speculated by neo-Darwinian evolution.Kind regards,
CROsoft.

​

[This message has been edited by CROsoft, 02-24-2002][This message has been edited by CROsoft, 10-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Just an interesting note (and I cannot find the news article
anywhere), but a famous(ish) british author called Jilly Cooper
had a goat on her farm that gave birth to a sheep, and she doesn't
keep sheep.

​

Don't know whether sheep and goats can interbreed either.

---

I doubt they can, and I'll believe a goat giving birth to a sheep when I see it, no offence.

Hey CROsoft, can you cite papers that demonstrate that "information" is always "lost" in microevolution? Because when you see a microbe suddenly develop an enzyme that neutralizes an antibiotic, I think that is obviously a gain in "information" content.

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Just an interesting note (and I cannot find the news article
anywhere), but a famous(ish) british author called Jilly Cooper
had a goat on her farm that gave birth to a sheep, and she doesn't
keep sheep.

​

Don't know whether sheep and goats can interbreed either.

---

​

I doubt they can, and I'll believe a goat giving birth to a sheep when I see it, no offence.

​

---

Actually I have seen several sheep / goat hybrids. As a boy I lived near a research farm at Gogarburn on the outskirts of Edinburgh. They were concerned with the genetics of sheep and developed a number of "shoats" and "geep". I think my father still has photos of them in the fields. We had seen them quite often but thought they were perhaps a rare bread - the looked vaguely similar to the Soay sheep sometimes found half-wild in the Hebrides. It wasn't until we saw a brief television clip about the research that we realised they were Frankensheep.Later the unit conducting the research moved out to The Bush at Roslin, where they were to become famous for developing Dolly the cloned? sheep.

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Just an interesting note (and I cannot find the news article
anywhere), but a famous(ish) british author called Jilly Cooper
had a goat on her farm that gave birth to a sheep, and she doesn't
keep sheep.

​

Don't know whether sheep and goats can interbreed either.

---

​

I doubt they can, and I'll believe a goat giving birth to a sheep when I see it, no offence.

---

None taken ... it was a story in the tabloid press, and I think
her book sales were down, sooo ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Hey CROsoft, can you cite papers that demonstrate that "information" is always "lost" in microevolution?

---

My previous assertion was not that the definition of microevolution denies the possibility of information increase. I stated that *observed* microevolution has not increased specificity and consequently proof of microevolution does not automatically become proof that neo-Darwinian evolution can occur. In fact, I asserted, none of the current examples of microevolution can be cited as proof for neo-Darwinian evolution (Of course, if you disagree - you're welcome to provide further information). It is therefore misleading to the public for evolutionists to be continually pointing to evidence for microevolution, and urging it as proof for macroevolution. Observed microevolution is as different to macroevolution as black is to white, since the former is loss of information (or at least no gain), yet the latter is increase in specificity and information.

quote:

---

Because when you see a microbe suddenly develop an enzyme that neutralizes an antibiotic, I think that is obviously a gain in "information" content.

---

Not necessarily at all. Specificity can still be lost in such a situation. In fact, in all observed cases so far; it has been.Dr Anderson, who is a Ph.D microbiologist pointed out;"All studies so far (including all of Hall's work that figured so prominently in Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God") that involve gene mutations (duplicated or not) show that while the product of the mutated gene may have acquired an affinity for a new "molecule," it is always at the expense of protein specificity. That is, the protein has lost specificity, so it can now bind to molecules it could not have bound before. But, loss of specificity hardly serves the purpose of the "General Theory of Evolution" since losing specificity requires that a higher level of specificity was already present. Thus, any mutation that causes the specificity to be lost is not the same type of mutation that produced the specificity originally. Evolutionists are still looking for the type of mutation that would produce the specificity (there has been no problem finding the types of mutations that can lose specificity)."He continues;"I like Dawkins' "climbing Mt. Improbable" example (and have incorporated it into my presentations). The types of changes necessary for an organism to increase in complexity (a requirement for the "General Theory") are analogous to climbing a mountain, where a high order of biological complexity is the peak or pinnacle. All of the mutation examples that evolutionists have currently offered are either no net gain/loss of genetic information (ie., just walking around the circumference of the mountain) or a net loss of genetic information (ie., walking down the mountain). None provide a means for climbing the mountain (including the rather silly examples that Dawkins writes his endless dribble about). It should also be noted that to move down the mountain requires one to be up the mountain first. Since there is no known scientific mechanism to get you "up" the mountain and the only scientific examples we have are downward (or around), then the only valid scientific conclusion at this time is that organisms started their biological history "up" the mountain and everything after that is simply movement around or down the mountain (every single example of documented "evolutionary" change that I have ever seen fits this). Any other conclusion than this should be referred to as nothing more than speculation and "story telling." But don't call it science."Perhaps a good idea might be for you to provide an example of a process which you believe has added information (climbed up the mountain), and time permitting, I'll attempt to explain why it hasn't. Logically, you are obliged to prove an existance; I am not obliged to prove a non-existance.Remember that your example is not an increase in information if specificity is lost. Also, a gain in genetic material does not mean a gain in information, so gene duplication or polyploidy alone cannot be cited as information increase, regardless of whether they have the "potential to become new information". I.e, throwing a few more letters into a pile of scrabble peices does not automatically increase the information. If you make a sentence from scrabble pieces and then insert some more peices randomly, you have more material, but since randomness is highly likely to have increased; information most probably has been lost.So long,
CROsoft.------------------
CRO technologies. Little things, great things.

[QUOTE][b]Remember that your example is not an increase in information if specificity is lost.[/QUOTE][/b]Could you explain the justification for that in more detail? An enzyme can bind to one substrate, then that enzyme can bind to two substrates. That can be beneficial to the microbe (UTILITY has increased) and I don't understand why specificity = information. Specificity it seems is a disadvantage, and since you presuppose that information is a teleological principle anything that reduces disadvantage to the microbe would be an *increase* in information. [QUOTE][b]Also, a gain in genetic material does not mean a gain in information, so gene duplication or polyploidy alone cannot be cited as information increase, regardless of whether they have the "potential to become new information".[/QUOTE][/b]Which brings up an interesting point. Suppose the gene that mutates to assume a new function (which I consider an increase in "information") duplicates before mutating. You now have two different enzymes, one with less specificity than the other.Also, if the mutant mutates again so that it can only bind to the "new" substrate, the old function is "lost" so that "specificity" increases, again through the *loss* of information, which leads me to two arguments:(1) I reiterate that specificity is not an indicator of "information"(2) Even if it were, there is nothing to prevent specificity from increasing through mutation.

Crosoft: Interesting post(s). Unfortunately, although your intent was stated at the beginning ("I was traversing the vacuity of cyberspace when I stumbled upon your message. After reading that your question had been asked on a number of occasions, and that your lack of a substantial answer remained, I thought it necessary to make a few points as I "passed through town"), you have still failed to define "information" anywhere. I would appreciate it if you would start out by defining your terms, preferably with examples from nature (rather than theoretical constructs):- information
- increase or loss of information
- specified complexityIn addition, I would appreciate an explanation or expansion of the following key points in your first post, again with specific examples from nature:- advantageous defect
- relationship between specified complexity and information
- how "loss of information" leads to speciation
- how polyploidy was determined to be the only method of speciation (rather than all the other forms of mutation coupled with natural selection). IF possible, in this context it would be useful if you could explain the relative dearth of living polyploid animals vs the relative commonality of polyploid plants (specifically angiosperms)
- please provide a synopsis (since the term is not used in biology) of what constitutes the "General Theory of Evolution"I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on your explanation contained in this paragraph:

quote:

---

Information is a measure of the decrease in randomness/uncertainty at a reciever [sic] or molecular machine. Uncertainty is a logarythmic [sic] measure of the number of choices a reciever [sic] (or molecular machine) has. Not one mutation has ever been observed to increase the specified complexity and information (as defined above) of a genome.

---

What is "uncertainty" in a biological system? Please provide an example to illustrate your point. What is meant by "randomness at a receiver"? Again, example? How does a non-sentient organism, biological pathway, or chemical demonstrate "choice"? Again, an example would be useful.As a final note, I would appreciate a reference for the Dawkins quotes. Thanks.If you can elaborate on the above, I may be able to provide a substantive reply to your message.

Why CROsoft! There you are!! Have you forgotten your promise to reply to us on True Seekers board? Surely you do not make promises you do not keep, do you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by CROsoft:

​

....

​

In other words, define things as you will; observed microevolution has not increased the specified complexity (thus information) of an organism. Therefore; observed microevolution (lots of losses) extrapolated in time, does not produce the requirements of The General Theory of Evolution.

​

......

​

The very concept of random mutations decreasing randomness is not particularly logical. Information is a measure of the decrease in randomness/uncertainty at a reciever or molecular machine. Uncertainty is a logarythmic measure of the number of choices a reciever (or molecular machine) has. Not one mutation has ever been observed to increase the specified complexity and information (as defined above) of a genome.
Gene duplication and polyploidy do not increase genetic information and specified complexity. They simply repeat existing information. A duplicated gene/chromosome adds no more information than the same statement doubled does. A duplicated gene/chromosome adds no more information than the same statement doubled does.

​

......

---

If you go to http://www.tigr.org/tdb , you will find a database containing completely sequenced genomes for a number of organisms.Now here is a challenge for you: go to that web-site, download the sequence data for several organisms, and then using your definition of "information", calculate the information differential (in bits) between the genomes of several pairs of those organisms. Post your answers here, along with the complete source-code of the program you wrote that computes the information gain/loss.Since you are apparently equating "specified complexity" with "information", and appear to be using the Shannon-Weaver definition of information (which is a concise and easily-coded mathematical expression), you should have no trouble computing the amount of information (and hence the amount of "specified complexity") gained or lost "transitioning" from one genome sequence to another.You have not established that your definition of "information" has any relevance at all to evolution, but let's set that aside for now. Just for right now, let's have you demonstrate that you understand and can work with the concepts that you are tossing about so glibly. Let's see some hard numbers and some source code!

​

​

[This message has been edited by Caerbannog, 02-23-2002]

Hi, CROsoft!

---

CROsoft writes:
I thought it necessary to make a few points as I "passed through town". (Never mind the fact that I almost declined the opportunity after finding that I had to register...)

---

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.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.

---

Observed microevolution (neutral or information loss) is incapable of turning a fish into a philosopher (information gain).

---

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.--Percy

[QUOTE]Percipient[b]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.[/QUOTE][/b]And it tends to make people more responsible for their behavior, makes multiple personas less practical, and I'm sure, generally allows more administrative control.I think it's a good idea.