Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 195 (239617)
09-01-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by PaulK
09-01-2005 12:36 PM


Re: Dawkins
quote:
I don't know where you got that from but whoever wrote it doesn't have much of a clue.
THe weasel program is not intended as a representation of evolution (as I already pointed out)
The weasel program does NOT assume that "dice have memory" (how do we know ? Because it uses random variations itself - with no memory)
"Weasel casino" is apparently "more realistic" because it assuems that detrimental mutations don't occur. (Why is THAT realistic ?)
And what on earth would an "incomplete" protein be ?
It uses random variation- with memory. It recongnizes information that looks similar to that of the objective and holds onto that information untill the objective is met.
An incomplete protein is one that does not contain all the amino acids that are needed to form a protein that is complete. Example:
If the code for the protein was: "the boy ran fast" and a protein is incomplete it would only have the amino acids to say "the boy ran".
Of course incomplete proteins are found in Vegitables and are made for the complete protien. That is why if you combine your vegitables the pretein can be made complete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 12:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 3:04 PM tjsrex has replied
 Message 114 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 7:00 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 195 (239644)
09-01-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 2:34 PM


Re: Dawkins
The random element has no memory. The memory element is in the selective part of the algorithm. And in that respect it is like evolution. Criticising the weasel program for too closely resembling evolution is pretty perverse.
And I am afrad that your explanation of an "incomplete protein" makes it seme irrelevant to evolution. I don't think that we need to consider what happens if the developmental process is disrupted by outside forces. (Although your comments about vwegetables make no sense)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 2:34 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 4:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 108 of 195 (239678)
09-01-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
09-01-2005 1:44 PM


You aren't thinking of the stick insects are you?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 1:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 3:49 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 109 of 195 (239680)
09-01-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Wounded King
09-01-2005 3:45 PM


... shhh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 3:45 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 195 (239699)
09-01-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by PaulK
09-01-2005 3:04 PM


Re: Dawkins
The random element itself doesn't have memory yes. It is randomly shuffled, sorry if I made it seem like it was not. But I was talking about the selection and how Dawkins makes it seem like it has memory. Without specified complexity arising at one time then Natural Seletion will not go towards making a new gene with specified complexity. It won't try to make a protein it doesn't have knowledge of. As you already know, in order for a new protein to arise the blueprint for the amino acids to follow must already be present. You can't have a peice of the blueprint and hope that overtime the rest of the peices will fall into place, that would suggest that natural selection knows what to keep to create the fully functional protein it doesn't have knowledge of. If the blueprint is not complete, meaning it will produce a fully funtional protein, then the new protein cannot be produced with selection as its guiding force. As Dawkins experiment suggests. When you see that natural selection will not work as the guiding force, then you can see why Dawkins program is rigged to get better results.
I was not very clear in my vegitable explanation(I had a massive head ache and fealt sick). Vegitables contain protein that lack the amino acids needed for complete proteins. If you were to only eat vegitables you would need to combine them in order to get the complete amount of amino acids for our protein. They are classified as incomplete protein because these foods by themselves are low in one or more of the essential amino acids. I didn't think it was relevant to evolution lol. But you said something like "what in the world is an incomplete protein?" So I just gave you an answer heh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 3:04 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 5:13 PM tjsrex has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 195 (239714)
09-01-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
09-01-2005 1:44 PM


quote:
would you say that a mutation that switches on wings in a bug would be increased information?
No because the information for the wing is already there. All it did was allow for it to be shown. Same goes for if say a bug with wings's looses them because a mutation switched it off. If it gained a gene that enabled it to grow wings, then that is new information being added.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 1:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 6:34 PM tjsrex has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 112 of 195 (239716)
09-01-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 4:49 PM


Re: Dawkins
Well of course the selective element builds on what has come before. That is one of the similarities to evolution. It's an essential part of the point Dawkins is demonstrating - the power of cumulative change constrained by selection.
Natural selection DOESN'T try to build proteins at all. But it will retain proteins that perform useful functions - and improvements to them. And improved function can be legitimately seen as an increase in specified complexity as the term is usually understood (the improved function represents a tighter specification). Evolution is not mainly about producing completely novel proteins - that's an extreme rarity (and if it happens at all I would be very surpried if it were using a new and novel sequence of DNA !). Mostly it's modifying existing proteins, occasionally producing a variant of an existing protein along with the original or modifying regulatory features - the timing of the developmental processes being a significant example.
Vegetable proteins aren't incomplete - they're perfectly complete from the point of view of evolution (the vegetables didn't evolve to feed us, so any shortcomings in that area aren't relevant to evolution).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 4:49 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 7:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 195 (239750)
09-01-2005 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 5:07 PM


No because the information for the wing is already there.
so on-off mutations are no change in information.
If it gained a gene that enabled it to grow wings, then that is new information being added.
So the first time was the new information. How is this different?
(1) mutation alters gene slightly (allows another gene to be expressed)
(2) mutation alters gene slightly (allows a variation in the feature developed)
At the genetic level all there is to show for it is a different DNA pattern, functionally no different than any other change in DNA pattern as far as the gene is concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 5:07 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 7:45 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 119 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 9:10 PM RAZD has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 114 of 195 (239756)
09-01-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 2:34 PM


Re: Dawkins
"the boy ran fast" and a protein is incomplete it would only have the amino acids to say "the boy ran".
This is quite a suitable example. Not only are there many detrimental mutations caused by prematurely truncated proteins but there are also many protein isoforms which produce functional proteins with effectively similar truncations. In many cases such a truncated form may act as a repressor of the actvity of the full length protein, such as receptor proteins where the cytoplasmic active site has been truncated, or have a completely different function.
What sort of informational changes would have occurred in relation to our starting point should " the boy ran fast" be duplicated and subsequently truncated leaving us with both "the boy ran fast" and another protein, "the boy ran", which has a wholly novel function.
Is there any connection between the functionality of the protein product and the information in your scheme of things. I would have thought there must be as the only thing which can be specified is surely the function of the protein as dictated by, to a large extent, the primary sequence of amino acids and therefore by the genetic sequence. So how do changes in function, regardless of their origin, reflect changes in information, if at all?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 2:34 PM tjsrex has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 7:27 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 195 (239762)
09-01-2005 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
09-01-2005 5:13 PM


Re: Dawkins
from the point of specified complexity vegitable protiens are complete yes. (They are classified as incomplete protein because these foods by themselves are low in one or more of the essential amino acids.) as I stated before I was only answering your question about what an incomplete protien is.
quote:
Well of course the selective element builds on what has come before. That is one of the similarities to evolution. It's an essential part of the point Dawkins is demonstrating - the power of cumulative change constrained by selection.
Natural selection DOESN'T try to build proteins at all. But it will retain proteins that perform useful functions - and improvements to them. And improved function can be legitimately seen as an increase in specified complexity as the term is usually understood (the improved function represents a tighter specification). Evolution is not mainly about producing completely novel proteins - that's an extreme rarity (and if it happens at all I would be very surpried if it were using a new and novel sequence of DNA !). Mostly it's modifying existing proteins, occasionally producing a variant of an existing protein along with the original or modifying regulatory features - the timing of the developmental processes being a significant example.
As I stated before a mutation can be benifitial and information poor.
If a gene is changed that stops wings from growing in a bug. Then the bug has lost the ability to use his wings. If the environment is so that it is benefitial then that guy is lucky and will move on to the next stage of life. But he has not gained anything new from the process. His gene for allowing a wing to grow has become dormant so he is now information poor. Improvement is not "legitimately seen as an increase in specified complexity" but more of a limit on what was previously already specified complexity or making it information poor.
A mutation does not produce specified complexity, but rather complexity. Mutation after mutation in that same gene "highly improbable" will only make it gain more complexity. "superman" to "soufnwla", Clearly it is not producing a new word like "florists". Natural Selection will not guide it to "florists" either. Manly because it has no reason to go through "small steps" to get to that goal. Peices of information needed to arrive at a new protein and new gene are not going to be grabbed by natural selection and hailed as important information by themselves. In fact they will more then likely be harmful to the already exitent information or they won't do anything because they are useless by themselves. But like I said you do occasionaly get a benefitial result from a loss of information. But that benifitial result is only because it screwed something up in the already information rich gene. In no way has it added information or will it ever become added information. You will not get a long line of consecutive mutations to that one gene untill it becomes a new gene. Thats like telling the cells to be very precise when making there copying mistakes lol.
You can change the gene frequency or the ratio of the genes that are already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you won’t get evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 5:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2005 2:29 AM tjsrex has not replied
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2005 2:32 AM tjsrex has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 116 of 195 (239769)
09-01-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Wounded King
09-01-2005 7:00 PM


Re: Dawkins
leaving us with both "the boy ran fast" and another protein, "the boy ran", which has a wholly novel function.
to say nothing of a transposition error that would produce "the fast boy ran" so that now, not only do we have a boy that runs fast but does several other things fast.
{{edit to fix letter transposition error}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*01*2005 07:28 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 7:00 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 11:32 PM RAZD has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 195 (239778)
09-01-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
09-01-2005 6:34 PM


quote:
So the first time was the new information. How is this different?
I don't understand the question. The first time of what?
So, the first time was(produced?) new information.- Are you saying that I said "there is new information being added"?
How is this different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 6:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 7:52 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 195 (239782)
09-01-2005 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 7:45 PM


the first time wings evolved {on the bug in question}
... Are you saying that I said ...
Actually what you said was (Message 111):
tjsrex, msg 111 writes:
If it gained a gene that enabled it to grow wings, then that is new information being added.
Or are you equivocating now?
{{abe: added qualification in {} above}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*01*2005 07:54 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 7:45 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 195 (239802)
09-01-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
09-01-2005 6:34 PM


quote:
so on-off mutations are no change in information.
No there is a change. It becomes Information poor or if it is being switched back on from a dormant state then its original information is being "revived". No information that was not present is being added either way.
quote:
So the first time (that the wing evolved) was (when) the new information (was gained). How is this different?
(1) mutation alters gene slightly (allows another gene to be expressed)
(2) mutation alters gene slightly (allows a variation in the feature developed)
At the genetic level all there is to show for it is a different DNA pattern, functionally no different than any other change in DNA pattern as far as the gene is concerned.
You can't just have any pattern or you are left with a pile of junk. Proteins require very detailed and specific patterns in order that the amino acids are arranged correctly. small change x time does not equal big change. Small change x time equals a huge loss of specified complexity. The more mutations occur the further that gene gets from doing its Job. If everytime an essay was copied there was a new mistake such as a letter change. Eventually that essay will be a full page of nothing but crap. All signs of specified complexity would be gone because the essay would no longer have even one word that made sense. The only way for New information rich material to arrive would be for it to appear at once. If it doesn't then it will just take away from the existing gene's specified comlexity. There in lies the seperation between Micro and Macro-evolution. Creationists like myself do not deny Micro-evolution but macro we have no reason to believe because there has never been a mutation "that we know of" to add new information. Only mutations that take information away from an information rich gene.
I was not trying to avoid replying. I just find it hard to understand sentences without specifics. I could say "it is good and very interesting" and leave out words, but more then likely the person reading it won't know what im talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 6:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 11:03 PM tjsrex has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 120 of 195 (239826)
09-01-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 9:10 PM


No there is a change. It becomes Information poor or if it is being switched back on from a dormant state then its original information is being "revived".
So they have the same amount of "information" but in one case that "information" is poor and in another it is rich? The same amount, but one is of less value than the other? Did the exchange rate change?
No information that was not present is being added either way.
What about the "information" of the gene that switches it from one state to the other?
It had the "information" for the rich state, then only the "information" for the poor state and then, miraculously, it again has the "information" for the rich state?
Or is it being switched on and off between another informationally poor and rich state?
Needless to say this reductionist argument is ridiculous to pursue. Either the amount of "information" changes or this cannot happen. If "information" can be lost, then it can be {invented\rediscovered} independent of the first form. If "information" cannot be lost then the concept has no {predictive\conceptual\understanding} value.
The more mutations occur the further that gene gets from doing its Job. If everytime an essay was copied there was a new mistake such as a letter change. Eventually that essay will be a full page of nothing but crap.
Typical. This completely ignores the mechanism of selection.
As noted in the "a boy ran fast" change to "a fast boy ran" there is just as much information in the words but the meaning has added capacity for the boy to be fast at other things. this could easily be selected for by {natural selection} to form a new species phrase.
This could even be preceded by an intermediate transposition to "a boy fast ran" which conveys the previous meaning although a little "poorly" and allows the further mutation to an altered state of more information. This one may not survive long term (due to it's "poor" state) but it could survive long enough to lead to the further mutation of "a fast boy ran" - and it would then also represent a "missing (brief) transition" stage.
Meanwhile another transposition mutation to "fast a boy ran" would restore the original meaning albeit with an altogether different code.
If a change in environment caused the "a fast boy ran" to be less advantageous by natural selection than "a boy ran fast" this further mutation is a more likely evolution to "solve" the survival problem than going back through the poor intermediate.
What this shows is that the concept of "information" being applied to DNA sequences is false. There are many ways to convey the same information. It has no predictive value on mutations and the resulting natural selection.
There in lies the seperation between Micro and Macro-evolution.
Where? Where is the difference at the genetic level? It is all the same code in slightly different patterns throughout the whole genome, and it is entirely possible (theoretically) to take DNA from {one organism} and by genetic manipulation move the individual bits around, copy some and delete others, and end up with DNA from {any other organism}. And there is no loss\gain of "information" in the process.
There is nothing to stop such DNA transformation at any stage in the evolution of any species. What makes it unlikely to repeat former such changes is the {changing\chaotic} {nature\force} of natural selection along the way.
because there has never been a mutation "that we know of" to add new information.
Of course: because you define all mutations as changes of existing information, this becomes the mantra to repeat regardless of the evidence in front of you.
Only mutations that take information away from an information rich gene.
Thus the genetic information of Australopithicus afarensis had more "information" and "rich" value than our own. We are but poor deformed apes?
Facinating.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 9:10 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by tjsrex, posted 09-02-2005 2:32 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024