Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?

No, what my wife is doing has to do with macro-evolution. What she does would not be possible if macro-evolution, that is, the evolution of new species from old ones, had not occured, and if random mutation and natural selection could not create novel genetic sequences.What she does would be literally impossible if macro-evolution as you've defined it had not occured. Does she observe it in the lab? No, of course not - the samples she works with are dead. But the observations she makes would not be there if macro-evolution had not occured. Do you supposed that might be because those are problems of chemistry, and you're talking mainly to biologists?The chemical origins of life is a focus of chemistry, not biology. The theory of evolution is not a model of the development of life from its non-living precursors, but of the history and development of organisms that are already alive. If you don't understand the scope of the theory, then you simply don't understand the theory. Again, a problem for chemistry, but let me see what I can find...Here we go. I trust you'll have no problem with primary sources? You can look these up on the web or at your college's library, I'm sure.Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389: 234-235.Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151.Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.In fact here's a monster of an article that suggests an explanation for most of the questions you've raised so far:Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. Eye evolution is pretty well understood. I suggest that you start here:

quote:

---

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

---

I promise that I'll do my best to show you what I know. But since we're talking about science, a lot of the evidence is going to be found in scientific papers. You need to be prepared to look these up yourself. I can help you do that, of course, and help you understand some of the technical language. I'm a layman as well, certainly not a scientist, but I encounter a lot of these papers so I might be able to lend a hand.But you have to be willing to extend at least a token effort. Are you? That's often the case in the wild; mutations don't occur on demand, of course. But we can, and have, designed experiments where bacteria become resistant to antibiotics that we know they contain no pre-existing resistance to. That's mutations giving rise to new information. Period. But you haven't done that. You've simply asserted some untrue facts about one class of mutations, and then asserted, strangely, that another class of mutations never happens.If you really believe that the two things have anything to do with each other then you're going to have to flesh it out for me. It simply doesn't follow logically the way you've presented it. So too with information gain. Thus we know that the information change of a mutation has nothing to do with its beneficiality or harmfulness, and therefore information is not needed for macro-evolution. Only novel genetic sequences which we've both agreed are the result of mutation. But I've just proven that this isn't the case.I guess I don't understand. Are you here to learn, or here to repeat yourself even in the face of research that refutes you? I thought you said you were open-minded. Here's two genetic sequences. Can you tell me which has more "Specified complexity"?ATAAATGGCA
CGGCATAGCCDo you understand why I keep asking you this? If you're not able to recognize specified complexity when you see it, then how can you make assertions about what increases or decreases it?

How are you measuring "canine", exactly? I've seen some pretty non-canine dogs. To say that they lack a degree of, um, caninity(?), would be an understatement.If you're telling me, though, that dogs are dogs because they're dogs, why would you expect that to be percieved as a meaningful statement, much less some kind of rebuttal against the mountain of evidence that supports evolution?

Ok, I'll do it. I'll need you to provide me with a breeding stock of a species of bat that can go from newborn to fertile adult in under 36 hours.Cuz, otherwise, we'll be here for a while.

Why do you say that? What if you tried to make it happen 1000000000000000000 times a second?

Note to self - don't feed the trolls.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-11-2005 07:16 PM

We have a considerable amount of evidence, consisting of the observation that all living things have genetics, and all genetics work pretty much the same way. Also we observe that, no matter what the organism, significant genetic changes always occur in a population over as many generations as would be represented by 25,000 years in dogs. And we know that the genetics of two organisms have to be similiar in certain ways if they're to interbreed.

I don't know for sure. But dogs are a special case; they've been subject to a considerably greater degree of selection than your tigers and lions during the last thousand generations or so.Who knows? 25,000 years of dogs is 10,000 generations (give or take.) That's a considerable degree of genetic change right there. The same amount of time is a lot few generations for tigers and lions, who live much longer before reproductive maturity.