Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?

quote:

---

To list some of the errors in Sarfati's claims:

​

1) There is no requirement for the gene to be deactivated (and therefore no requirement for it to be reactivated).

​

2) The genetic code is highly redundant and therefore the number of possible proteins a gene of a given length could code for is significantly smaller than the number of differnet combinations of the bases.

​

3) We cannot say that there has not been enough time unless we know the number of useful proteins and how they are distributed in sequence space relative to the mechanisms of mutation - factors Sarfati completely ignores.

---

1)I don't understand the whole activation and deactivation process and what role it plays. Could one of you explain it to me? its not a trick question im just curious, because right now I am making an assuption that if it is not deactivated then it would be destroyed because of natural selection.
2) how much smaller? again not a trick question, just trying to get a better understanding.
3) Many people ignore things to make there view seem more persuasive then the other. Yet sometimes people just forget to add certain factors in. I am not justifying it only saying what is obvious. It would be awesome if someone would figure out the odds with the factors factored in.Creationists and Evolutionists have been known to leave factors out. Here is a nice read: http://itw.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Capstone/2000/hoffman.html
Just anothe example of factors being left out. I would love to see the factors put in.P.S. anyone who drives should watch the news, Gas prices are going to go up hardcore...not sure if in all places, but it would be good to go and fill up your tank.

quote:

---

So would a substitution of one base for another constitute a gain of information ?

---

quote:

---

If not, then how about a mutation that changes an amino acid in the protein a gene codes for ?

---

"Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed). To illustrate: if superman were the duplicated gene, and mutations in the letters changed it to sxyxvawtu , you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing." (Dr. Don Banton)Sorry about quoting people so much lol.So if the word slap in a sentence like: people slap people. was duplicated and one side was altered.slap-slkathen you would have complexity without specified complexity. you gain the letters lk but overall you have lost information that was usefull. It became "information poor". Specified complexity is needed for a benifitial gene and mutations have never been know to provide that.You might suggest that the complex(information poor) gene go through many mutations and therefore become specified. But then you run into alot more factors then before. That same gene would need to be mutated over and over again in order for it to become specified. Even then you have to realize that it is no simple task. Because the gene serves no purpose it will more then likely not filter through natural selection to well. It would need to be mutated with precision so that the other genes are not screwed up along the way. Plus it could have no goal. It would be an aimless process going against enormous odds in order to fufill nothing...which then happens to somehow bring about the perfect information for say feathers. Which latter on fit perfectly into a bird that has gone threw many other against the odds mutations and formed exactly what was needed for flight.so when it is stated that there needs to be an increase in information in order for macro evolution to occur. They are not speaking about aimless change that results in a overall loss of information, but rather specified complexity which makes it overall information increase.

quote:

---

2) For every 3 bases there are 20 possible amino acids. And 64 possible combinatiosn of bases. So for 999 bases there are:

​

about 10^433 possible proteins
(if we include stop codons as a 21st possibility then there are still only about 10^440 possibilities)

​

and about 10^601 possible combinations of bases (got by dividing Sarfati's 10^602 by 4 and rounding down).

​

That's an error factor of more than 10^160 - the SQUARE of the number Sarfati gives as the number of atoms in the universe.

​

The correct number is still huge but insignificant in comparison to the number Sardati gives.

---

2)See! I like real answers more then fluffed up ones. Thats awesome, great Job!.
3)its the way his computer programs ran made it much more persuasive."Dawkins then creates a computer program that deals with the same scenario, but with cumulative selection. It starts with 28 random characters, then "the computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases... and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."20 In other words, the computer program recognizes characters or sets of characters which are like the target phrase, keeps them, and replaces the others with another set of random characters. With every following generation, the phrase looks more like the target, until it reaches it. Dawkins discussed three trials where the target was reached in forty-one, forty-three, and sixty-four generations. Assuming that a monkey could write six phrases in an hour, he would normally be done in an average workday; instead of the monkey in the first scenario who could work continuously for its entire life and still not have a prayer of reaching the target phrase."Quoted from that site. (Section 2, II)

quote:

---

it seems to be that by analogy a similar substitution ot a gene or the protein it codes for should be considered "macro-evolution" on the same grounds.

​

The "lost information" objection doesn't seem to apply since "wong" is not an English word and so according to your new claim it would also be a loss of "information".

​

So if substituting a letter in a word would "suggest of macro-evolution" why not a substitution of an a amino acid in a gene or the protein a gene codes for ?

---

Easily explained YOUR JUST WRONG! lol just kinding. I screwed up before the most recent one. I didn't understand the difference between complexity and specified complexity. I thought it was considered macro-evolution because I thought that information was just complexity. It wasn't untill the recent one that I saw how complexity without specified complexity is a loss of information instead of a gain. My mistake sorry about that, don't want to be confusingwhen I said lost information I ment a loss of information.

quote:

---

So in the case of a gene mutating what would count as a gain rather than a loss of information ? Can you offer a consistent measure ?

---

I just learned about the different complexities like 30 min ago lol. Here is a link that seems to explain it: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis " 2) Since DNA codes for proteins, what is the relationship between your definition of complexity and the number of genes contained in DNA?There is of course a rough relationship between the number of proteins coded for by a DNA sequence and the level of specified complexity. But number of genes is very approximate. For example, the human DNA supposedly contains some 35,000 genes and yet the human cell can produce over 100,000 proteins (estimates range up to 150,000 or even more). Obviously, there is much that is not known about how 35,000 genes can produce so many different proteins. A more accurate measure of the specified complexity of a given genome would be the number of proteins coded. However, there is also much information not involved directly in protein productionfor example, in chromosome structure. And there is probably a huge amount of information present that determines developmental sequences, for examplenone of this is really understood. There is also the possibility of error-checking sequences, etc., etc. There is just not enough known yet about the functions of all the DNA sequences to meaningfully quantify the information properly. "(same site)Look over #1. you will probobly understand it far better then I do.

He gives the program a goal and the program works up to that goal. In reality natural selection and random mutations are not going to all work together to reach a single objective. If there was a goal then that would imply that a divine creator who programmed the goal into nature like Dawkins programmed the target phrase into his computer program. So yes it does show that by small cumulative changes the objective can be met. But without the objective and the aid of the program, ("and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase"). Then the small cumulative changes would be random. That is when you get into the example with the monkey typing randomly without any guidence. Like the man said, he would type all his life and never reach his goal.It seems very likely untill you factor in what is actually needed for what is being said to happen in nature.

quote:

---

Pretending? Did you, or did you not post these words?

---

yes i said those word but you have choosen not to pay attention to my definition of new. If you copy and past the whole sentence you would see that. I mean if you wish to only pay attention to peices of sentences, you can do that but its pretty sad.....wait what was that again?...
Ok thanks for saying "we're agreed" in the last post. I guess you already understand how taking out parts that you want from sentences is sad.

What is this selecive force?

quote:

---

You're free, I guess, to define "new" however you like, but now you need to show how your definition is necessitated by evolutionary theory. I've already proven that the genetics of development shows that descent with modification is more than enough "new" to explain the evolution of new traits; so far you have yet to address those arguments.

​

Anytime you're prepared to do so is fine with me.

---

you explained nothing of the sort only gone on and on about how you can make it look like I said there is new information. you kept trying to say that if you alter an already existing gene you can get things like a leg. I showed you that your assuption is false because it does not contain the information needed for a "leg" and so on. Later on in this topic I realized that I was looking at information in the wrong way. Things can be added or changed to a "duplicate" of a gene. But that does not mean it gains information. like if the word slap became sljo. Although there is change it is a loss of information because it whent from information rich to information poor.You use way to many "I hope they don't read the old post" tactics when you try to prove that what you believe is right. How about we try something new? How about we put our differences aside and examine what can be seen. No judgmental attacks or anything. Honestly I don't care whether I believe in Macro evolution or not, im a Christian and nothing will change that. I don't depend on science to hold my point of view. I looked at all sorts of information on all sorts of fields before making my choice and am happy I made the choice. So I am willing to here both sides of the story and examine them. Since I am the only one trying to support the intellegent design side right now. Its hard to keep up and respond to all the posts. I am a 'laymen' and only know so much. I will do my best to represent the creationists side if everyone is willing to listen and correct me. I don't know about you guys but I am tired of creation vs evolution debates and would like to see one finished with some actuall answers. I will be willing to try to find ways for both cases to be true so that the evidence is laid down on the table for examination. but if everyone keeps jumping in the YOUR WRONG! He's RIGHT! circles its pointless because this thread will end up like all the other ones.(last word wins scenario). Now I am more familiar with the creationist side then the evolutionists side, so I might need some explanations at times.Does anyone actually want to be civilized and take an open minded approach? Or should I just leave.If you want to start examining things to find out how they occured. then why don't we start with how the gene's became so complex? I don't want replies like NATURAL SELECTION! or MUTATION!. If we want to find reasonable ways for such occurences then details are very important...some of you are much more knowledgable then I am so try to make it so a laymen can understand it. If I think that there is a problem with what you have said I will post trying to explain myself. Then you would be free to explain why I am wrong. Simple enough? anyone up for it?

Doesn't Natural Selection only wead out the less fit of what is already there? Can it also explain how new information "specified complexity" arose? What is needed for "specified complexity"? Is there such thing as an "Information poor" gene? Does lack of "specified complexity" mean that a gene is "Information poor"? How exactly did so many benifitial gene's arise? In order for benifitial Gene's to arise does there not need to be "specified complexity"?....ummm can't think of anymore questions that would be good to find out the truth....I know there are more.....brain dead lol

quote:

---

That is a bit worrying since you weren't even familiar with the different types of complexity discussed by proponents of ID earlier on today. It doesn't sound like you are particularly familiar with either side.

---

I didn't say I was a professional, I said I was a 'laymen'. I read, I learn, I make mistakes. Just because I don't understand it like the back of my hand doesn't mean I am not familiar with it. If you were to mention irreducibly complex organisms, antibiotics, fruit flies, fossils, est. I would know what you were talking about.I was talking about "individual genes"

Ok since I don't understand what a neutral mutation is...would you mind explaining it to me? simplest form.

The definition I got wasDefinition of neutral mutation:1) A mutation that has no effect on the Darwinian fitness of its carriers.
2)A mutation that has no phenotypic effect.Definition of phenotype :(1) The detectable outward manifestations of a specific genotype.
(2) The observable attributes of an organism.
(3) The physical characteristics of a living object.So basically a neutral mutation is one that does not effect the physical characteristics of the living object.That was fairly simple so it must be the way I think it occurs. Can you correct my fault?

I think I have ordered a working example of complexity vs specified complexity:(a gene is like a long 'sentence' carrying one part of the total instructions recorded on the DNA)~Gene:1) Normal Sentence: the enemy is now attacking.2) Neutral mutation Sentence: tha enemy is now attacking.a change, but not affecting the end result.3) Harmful mutation Sentence: the enemy is not attackingthe enemy is now attacking accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to 'the enemy is not attacking'. The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation.~Gene duplicate or Polyploidy (total number of chromosomes can double, or a single chromosome can duplicate itself.):
Polyploidy: This process is fairly common in plants, and explains why some plants can have as many as 100 chromosomes.
This is the photocopying method. No information is added that was not already existent in the previous chromosomes.
Normal:
1) the enemy is now attacking
the enemy is now attackingNeutral:
2) The enemy is now attacking
Tha enemy is now attackingHarmful:3) the enemy is now attacking
the enemy is not attackingIf somehow a sentence arose with specified complexity like:time is a figment of your imaginationThen information has been added because it is a new working gene, making new proteins, for new organs. It is neither harmful nor neutral, that is until that gene undergoes mutations. Then the degenerative process starts over again.
No known mutations have been know to give rise to specified complexity. Without specified complexity a new gene could not arise. Complexity itself is not enough because it cannot provide information, only a loss of already existing information as you have seen above.

So the question is, how can we get specified complexity from a gene that is already information rich without a harmful or neutral mutation? Polyploidy only brings us back to the original problem, but it does give us an extra gene (Actually it duplicates the whole chromosome). Is there anyway for that gene to undergo a complete change without disrupting the other genes? what about natural selection, would it weed out the gene during its progressive change? Are there any other ways for a gene to gain specified complexity for a mutation?There are 2 ways to approach it, either dismiss the whole thing or address each issue. If you can dismiss the whole issue can you post a detailed explanation of how you arrived at your conclusion? remember keep it simple for a laymen lol.