Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?

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).

Well it doesn't matter that a mutation CAN be beneficial and "information poor". Evolution doesn't care about your ideas of intormation - evolution won't reject a beneficial mutation (or even a neutral mutation) just because it increases information. So how is it possible that information can't be increased by evolution ?You're also stuck on the idea that evolution has a specific goal in mind. It doesn't. Evolution isn't trying to produce a specific result. There's no point setting up hypothetical situations where evolution wouldn't do what you would like it to do. That proves nothing. [quote] 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. [quote] Why not ? What stops the changes from adding up ? Remember that the protein produced by the gene could be recruited - and optimised - for new functions, quite different from the original use. Why can't these changes add up to the point where the gene would have to be considered a "new gene" by whatever criterion you are using ?

quote:

---

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.

---

That's pretty obviously wrong. How would a new beneficial mutation appearing and spreading through a population not be evolution ? How about a series of such changes adding up to a new species ? Or to a new genus ? Why would that not be evolution even if it doesn't involve what you call "new genes" ?

On the timescales involved I would say that the sheer variety we see in the different breeds of dog is quite dramatic evidence that evolution is possible. It certainly isn't evidence that large scale change is impossible as you claim.

quote:

---

Another problem... one must consider mathematical probability concepts. Nothing in nature, to my knowledge, defies basic laws of probability.

---

Another non-problem, you mean. Neither made-up "probabilities" or probabilities based on straw-man scenarios have any validity. If you can produce valid probability calculations that show a real problem wiht evolution you'd be the first creationist to do so.

What barriers are those ? And how do you know that they can't be broken ? I can't see how you can justify either claim based on the evidence of domestic dogs.

Everyone who has discussed this subject knows that creationists claim that barriers exist - and never offer any real evidence. It seems that you are no exception.So now that's disposed of, how about producing this probability problem you claim exists ?

So long as your claims can be simply answered you are going to get simple answers. If you could come up with a real argument maybe you would get somewhere. Instead you persist in making assertiosn that you can't back up.And it seems that you don't have much of a clue about evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

First of all, the difference between an otter and a dog is not only one protein substituion. It would require many simultaneous beneficial substitutions.

---

If we're talking about evolution you should talk about SEQUENTIAL substitutions to turn a dog into an OTTER-LIKE mammal. Evolutionary theory predicts that that is possible but exactly reproducing an otter would be far less probable (possible in principle but highly unlikely).

quote:

---

Better yet, let's how close someone can get to making an otter from a dog by artificially inducing random mutations.

---

Without selection that would be futile. Increasing the mutation rate at selected points could make the process faster but that's all it could do.