Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?

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. Do you mean particular individual genes? Gene networks or the entire genome?TTFN,WK

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.

You don't seem to understand that I dealt with this, several posts ago. The gene for "leg" doesn't have to contain the information for legs; it simply has to change the way other genes use the information they contain.For instance, consider the gene for polydactyly - having extra fingers. Persons who have this gene - which is dominant, oddly enough - have one or more extra digits.Now, the gene for this doesn't contain the information to make fingers. It's far too small to contain all that. Yet, persons with the gene never have fingers without bones or skin; they always have sensation in them and usually motor control, as well. All the gene does is tell other genes to do what they usually do, in one extra place.Stephen J. Gould wrote a whole series of essays on the subject of how genes can give rise to traits without containing the information for them. They are collected in a book called "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", and I suggest you check it out. But genes aren't words. Here are two genetic sequences. You tell me which has the most information and why:ATAAATGGCA
CGGCATAGCCThere's no point in using analogies involving English words because genes aren't words; words encode meaning within the context of a complex system of symbols and referents that exists only as a human construct; genes encode polypeptide chains comprised of amino acids. Then you need to stop debating. You're not going to find the answers in the debate. If you have questions about genes and evolution, then you need to study. I'm sure we can reccomend some books if you're really interested in doing that. You don't seem to understand that I did take an open-minded approach. I studied all the information and in the end, evolution proved to be a legitimate scientific theory and creationism and intelligent design proved to be bankrupt.Not only did I do this, but all evolutionists have. That's why evolution is a scientifically accepted theory and creationism finds support only among the religious, who believe that they have no other choice but to support it. If you're going to pick and choose what answers you will accept before you've even looked at the evidence, then how open-minded can you honestly claim to be?

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.

Or potentially helpful, if the enemy is indeed not attacking. It all depends on the selective effect of environment, which can't apparently be figured into your calculations of "specified complexity." Gene duplication and polyploidy are two different things.Genes, or even subsequences within genes, can be and often are duplicated without having to duplicate the entire chromosome.

quote:

---

You don't seem to understand that I dealt with this, several posts ago. The gene for "leg" doesn't have to contain the information for legs; it simply has to change the way other genes use the information they contain.

​

For instance, consider the gene for polydactyly - having extra fingers. Persons who have this gene - which is dominant, oddly enough - have one or more extra digits.

​

Now, the gene for this doesn't contain the information to make fingers. It's far too small to contain all that. Yet, persons with the gene never have fingers without bones or skin; they always have sensation in them and usually motor control, as well. All the gene does is tell other genes to do what they usually do, in one extra place.

​

Stephen J. Gould wrote a whole series of essays on the subject of how genes can give rise to traits without containing the information for them. They are collected in a book called "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", and I suggest you check it out.

---

Good post. I am not saying that 1 gene contains all the information for a leg. But without a new gene, with specified complexity, The gene is going to have either a neutral or harmful mutation. Both of which will not do anything when it comes to producing a leg. At most it would change the fins size shape, and so on.

quote:

---

But genes aren't words. Here are two genetic sequences. You tell me which has the most information and why:

---

Correct, gene's are not words. But the sentence analogy still represents the importance of order in the chains of amino acids. An order change such as ATAAATGGCA into AATAAATGGCA will give you a change in order much like a word. The word: LARGEST if changed would produce something similar to the change in code order: LAAEEST.

quote:

---

If you're going to pick and choose what answers you will accept before you've even looked at the evidence, then how open-minded can you honestly claim to be?

---

I didn't mean they couldn't say it is natural selection or mutation. I just didn't want them shouting it out without a dissent explanation of there view....I know you might be thinking of course they will give an explanation. You would be amazed how often it occurs lol.I did the open minded approach and found the opposite. I still hold the open minded approach but have yet to be persuaded that evolution is not bankrupt. Just because evolution is a scientifically accepted theory does not make it true. It all depends on the audience, evolution had many years to sink into our society because for many years we did not understand as much as we now understand. In the start the simple cell was thought to be simple is an example. The theory of evolution had enough time to take over the scientific community and represent itself as a fact. Yet as we began to understand more about the simple cell and the world around us, creationists began finding intellegence in these new findings. But since 'science' is based around the naturalistic view point it is nearly impossible for a creationist to be taken seriously outside of the Christian circle. Evolutionists are still sitting in the high seats and making sure creationists don't make it up. Try getting a job as a creationist in a related field and you will find problems, try submiting your essays for peer-to-peer review. If they person reviewing it does not support your view, it doesn't matter how good your paper is its getting the shaft. Does that mean that a creationists are less intellegent? of course not, but it does give the impression.

quote:

---

Or potentially helpful, if the enemy is indeed not attacking. It all depends on the selective effect of environment, which can't apparently be figured into your calculations of "specified complexity."

---

you are correct, it can be potentially helpfull. If say an antibiotic was going threw the blood stream and one of the whateves(to get all detailed) pumps didn't work and therefore was not affected by the antibiotic. That is micro-evolution because no new information is being introduced. Although it is helpful, it is an overall information loss. Helpful mutations are not a problem with creation, we don't deny that. Its the addition of additional specified complexity that we do not agree with.(we meaning all the creationists that do not deny micro-evolution)

with the Gene duplication, thank you for correcting my mistake. I assumed that they were the same thing. Gene Duplication still sounds like it has the photocopy affect. is that correct? It produces a copy of an already existing gene? if so I don't think I need to alter my information, if not I will need to add another section.

I've been looking but I don't see where you've proven that a new gene has to have "specified complexity" in order to be beneficial. In fact it's pretty obvious that this isn't the case at all. The same new gene can be a beneficial mutation in one environment, and a detrimental one in another environment. Since one gene can be beneficial or detrimental without changing in any way, we know that "specified complexity" isn't necessary for beneficial mutations. But it turns out that that's not really all that important. Only about 10%, maybe, of the length of a protein is the actual binding site - the only part that actually has function. And in the genes themselves, over 90% of a genetic locus is useless, junk DNA or "introns" - sequences that are transcripted but eliminated before protein synthesis occurs.Even discounting the introns, you can monkey with about 60% of the genetic instructions for your average protein before you even begin to appreciably affect it's chemical function.The word analogy simply doesn't hold up. It's absolutely useless in this context and all it's doing, really, is giving you false ideas about the role of information in genetics. It's going to be very hard for me to understand your view. I already mentioned that my wife works in the genetics field. She's doing research every day that wouldn't even be possible if evolution, specifically common descent and what you term "macro-evolution", were not fundamentally true.It's like you're telling a pilot's wife that you have doubts that airplanes actually fly. If evolution isn't true then what do you think people like my wife are doing in the lab all day? Don't you think that, if her research were impossible to perform, as it would be if evolution were not true, she would have noticed by now? Indeed you will. The reason for that is that creationism is fundamentally wrong. So wrong, in fact, that anyone who holds the position of creationism is either ignorant of the facts, fundamentally dishonest, or outright doesn't possess the intelligence necessary to understand the issue. Don't get your panties in a knot - this is true about anybody who holds a fundamentally, demonstratably wrong position. It's true about Holocaust deniers, it's true about supply-side economists, it's true about flat-earth proponents, and it's true about people who reject the most scientifically verified theory of the 20th and 21st centuries.Naturally, someone so ignorant, dishonest, or mentally handicapped is not an appropriate candidate for a science-related field. I wouldn't hire a Holocaust denier as a historian; I wouldn't hire a flat-earther as a geographer, and I wouldn't hire a creationist as a biologist. I'm sorry if that seems discriminatory or intolerant, but tolerance doesn't mean that we give lies or idiocy an equal weight to fact. Creationism is demonstratably wrong. Evolution is demonstratably accurate. Someone who cannot recognize this clear and obvious fact is not qualified to be a scientist, just as someone who can't tell the difference between diesel and gasoline isn't qualified to be an auto mechanic.

Well, now you're contradicting yourself. If information loss can be beneficial, and modification of a duplicated gene is no gain, then new information is not needed for macro-evolution. Apparently you can go all the way up without needing new information - you just need a source of novel genes, which you already agree that we have.

An existing gene, or parts of an existing gene. Not sure what you mean by "photocopy effect."