|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does microevolution logically include macroevolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
tjsrex Inactive Member |
quote: 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 confusing when I said lost information I ment a loss of information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Your example doesn't show Dawkins omitting anything. The "weasel" program illustrates the fact that a series of gradual changes plus a selective force can be dramatically more effective than random sampling. That's all it's meant to do. Dawkins is quite open about the fact that it is not a simulation of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well if you're going to use the term "specified complexity" in that sense don't confuse it with Dembski's usage (which I prefer to call "specified high improbability").
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tjsrex Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
crash, please stop pretending that I gave altered information the merit for being brand new. Pretending? Did you, or did you not post these words?
quote: and these?
quote: So we're agreed that changing information means new information. I don't see what the problem is. Well, aside from you trying to act like you didn't say what you said.
Remember, evolutionary belief teaches that once upon a time, there were living things, but no lungslungs had not evolved yet, so there was no DNA information coding for lung manufacture. Somehow this program had to be written. New information had to arise that did not previously exist, anywhere. Right. And, as we've agreed, it - the information - arose via modification to what was there, before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well it's just typical of the creationist use of "information". They don't ever offer a reliable way to quantify it so no increase can ever be shown to their satisfaction. So really there isn't an argument - just an assertion that is made in such an evasive way that the creationist never has to accept that it isn't true. That's not a valid objection to evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Did you not google the 2 words that I told you to google? What, about transposons? Look, I'm married to an invertebrate molecular phylogeneticist. I know all about transposons, and they're not a "theory of macro-evolution" separate from other genetic models; they're simply a mechanism for how genes distribute to an organism's offspring. They may indeed be a mechanism of species change, of course. But they're simply mechanisms of evolution, not "theories of macro-evolution."
Thats all I did Did what? These aren't "theories of macro-evolution". (The big tip-off for you should have been that the word "macro-evolution" appears in neither of these two abstracts.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
So you don't know what neutral mutations are then? Fair enough. Or is this perhaps some unique creationist concept of what constitutes'neutral' mutation?
TTFN, WK P.S. You might be well advised to brush up your molecular genetics before dipping back into answers in genesis for your next cut and paste, it might help you screen out some of the real dross.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tjsrex Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The "objective" and "the aid of the program" are the selective force in the example. That's a necessary part of the process. If you omitted the selection you wouldn't make the program any more like evolution - you'd be making it even less like evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tjsrex Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tjsrex Inactive Member |
What is this selecive force?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
yes i said those word but you have choosen not to pay attention to my definition of new. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Natural selection is the selective force in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tjsrex Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024