Increases in Genetic Information

In order for all life on earth to Evolve from a single micro-organism, that life has to go through the two types of evolution. Micro and Macro. In a previous post, those people discussing were not able to come to an agreed definition of the difference between the two. I would like to propose a definition based off of simple understanding of Genetics.Micro-evolution:
Micro evolution is changing of allele frequency within or between populations of the same "species", but not divergence into different "species" because even if two types of populations emerge from one population many times they can merge back into one population. If they can merge than they are not separate species. This is genetic drift and adaptation by natural selection.Macro-evolution:
In order for one organism to evolve into a two types of organisms, they have to be separated into two populations and then have enough mutations (that do not hurt or kill the organism and actually change the physiology of the organism) to completely change the organism into two distinguishable types ("kinds") that cannot re-mix their genetic information. They then become two separate "species" That is macro-evolution.I want to strictly impose that these two populations CANNOT remix when they diverge. Not just that they typically don't remix just because they don't feel like it or they are too far away, but they cannot physically, and or genetically remix.Evolution of all life on earth requires more than just a changing of genetic information but an increase in genetic information between two types of animals. For example, the average species of bacteria have anywhere between 600,000 base pairs of DNA and 7 million base pairs. The average human has about "3164.7 million chemical nucleotide bases"Human Genome Project Information Site Has Been UpdatedSo if all life started as a single bacteria, that bacteria would have to have increased in genetic information as it evolved into different organisms such as a fish or something and then into salamander then lizard or something, all the way up to a human. (I don't know the entire transition)Mutations would have to occur which code for new enzymes or proteins that perform new, useful and beneficial functions. This would mean that the new mutation would have to insert a huge amount of new base pairs into the genetic code all at once or one base pair at a time over a long time (but those new genes don't get deleted or changed back for some reason).Macro evolution with mutations that increase new, useful and/or beneficial genetic information that makes the organism more complex have to both be possible, have happened in the past and happen today in order for all life on earth to have evolved from a single micro-organism.Does everyone agree with these definitions?What evidence is there for Macro-evolution?Is there any proved, recorded event of mutations that increased beneficial or useful genetic information?Edited by jbozz21, : suggestions of Admin

Hi JBozz, welcome to EvC Forum.There's a few issues that need to be settled before we can promote your thread. First, this is highly controversial and could be a thread all by itself: You later repeat this assertion in slightly different form: I suggest you remove these assertions by editing your Message 1. If it becomes too big an issue during the discussion we can decide what to do then.Second, I think if you read the reference you provided you'll see that this statement is inaccurate and needs to be fixed: Third, you might have set your expectations a bit too high: Nothing is ever proved in science. Given the tentative nature of all science, its capacity for revision in light of new information or improved thinking, it would be extremely inconvenient if anyone ever actually *proved* anything. The goal of science is evidence sufficient for formulating frameworks of understanding that we call theories.As long as you understand that what you're really requesting is evidence, not proof, then we're good on this last issue.If you address the first two issues then I'll promote your thread.

Edited as per your request.

Thread copied here from the Increases in Genetic Information thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I am struggling a bit to understand how this thread differs from the one started by Faith a very short time ago. This assumption is bad. Because part of the response to your reasoning lies with this bad assumption, I cannot let this go without comment. The proposed model for human evolution involves divergence and variation and then reintegration by combination from diverse populations. Most humans but not all humans have neanderthal genetics.If you insist on this assumption, my response would be that real life does not work like that. Base pair count is not a great measures of complexity. And as a (standard) counter argument to your claim, an amoeba has 670 billion base pairs or about 200 times as many as do humans. Rather than quibble with the terminology here, something I could certainly do, I'll simply note that not all mutations result in speciation. The processes you describe (plus mutation) will act to increase diversity before and after speciation. Only the specific mutation or mutations that cause mating incompatibility are unsharable between species. Yet multiple variations that do not prevent mating or inter-fertility can occur and are shared. What does this do to your argument and your model? Yes. But we've had entire threads on those specific questions.Your attempts to distinguish between macro and micro evolution stink on ice. Macro evolution can be produced by a bunch of micro steps which eventual produce species which do not interbreed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Given your attitude on the other thread, I should like to ask: what point is there in talking to you? You won't take what we say on trust (which is fair enough). But when referred to scientific studies you declare them over your head. And when told that you could study the issue until you thoroughly understood it, you declare that you "don't have that kind of time". And lacking the knowledge that would come from such study, you feel free to reject any fact that contradicts your pre-determined religious beliefs.Which would make trying to educate you on these matters like pouring water into a sieve. You have talked yourself into a position where you can completely ignore any information you don't like. In answering your questions, we would be supplying you with a whole lot of information you wouldn't like, all of which you would ignore --- which would seem to make our efforts pointless.The only thing that seems more pointless is the way you ask questions to which you don't actually want answers.

I'm going to paraphrase your post just a little: Micro-tree-growth is the formation of tiny twigs and the thickening of existing branches. Macro-tree-growth is the formation of whole new branches. What evidence is there for macro-tree-growth?

Chimps and humans are exactly what you are looking for. We share a common ancestor, and the differences between us and chimps is due to the mutations that have accumulated in each lineage since genetic flow stopped between the two lineages. We have the genomes of both chimps and humans (as well as other apes), so we know exactly where the mutations occurred in the genome. The differences seen between humans and chimps is exactly what you are looking for.

yes but the amoeba, doesn't have nearly as many genes that code for proteins as the human genome, which means that these extra base pairs are probably telomeres which don't code for anything, exons or dna that is involved in directing translation and transcription or something else."The analysis shows that N. gruberi has 15,727 genes that code for proteins, compared to about 23,000 in humans."Read more at: http://phys.org/news189181779.html#jCpWhat I had specified was that these base pairs must be actual genes that code for proteins that benefit the cell.

Whose argument are you rebutting? No you did not "specify" any such thing. Here is what you actually posted. Besides, you are quibbling about a passing remark. How about addressing the substantive arguments I postedEdited by NoNukes, : Not testy enough.

Of course it doesn't work like that, that is why the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor is a lie. haha.
But anyway to get to your real point, humans and apes cannot reproduce and have children can they? That is the definition of species. (which by the way is totally disregarded in the classification of modern species for many animals, for example see lion x tiger)
Without that, it is only simple micro-evolution which would not sufficiently produce all life on earth from a single microbe. It would only allow species to diversify into subspecies (eg. Canis Lupus et al; the gray wolf and it's subspecies the common dogs being the best examples of how macro-evolution doesn't happen), but not really lead to knew types of animals that cannot re-converge.

Or perhaps your description of how scientist understand evolution to work is completely wrong. I am not interested in debating with you about how your misconception of evolution does not work. I agree that it does not. It is true that there are inconsistencies in our classification of species. But speciation still has a consistent definition. But let's work with speciation which is really what you are complaining about. Are you truly unable to see any problems with your argument? I'll give you a start on finding one problem.1) There is no single mutation that would convert a human to a non human ape.2) Neither a modern human nor a modern ape are genetically identical to the ancestors they evolved from.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Dr. Adequate, I don't mean to question all scientific studies, just obscure ones that really cannot be supported by any other scientific research. The truth is that there is bias in science, but the great thing about science is that there are at many times people with many different backgrounds and beliefs that can keep people in check that make false scientific studies. The problem lies when one person or group of persons performs a study but then it is not followed through by further validation or rebuttal by scientists without the same bias.
The problem that I have is when people make claims that are not supported by solid scientific research done by many different people. I also have a problem when people begin making claims based upon half truths meant to skew the truth to their own beliefs, or even lie about the data or the interpretation of data which happens at times.
I am just saying that nobody should trust obscure scientific data over common sense.

Only a complete fool would trust common sense over scientific data.The value of science is that it takes common sense out of the process.

But this is, of course, not what you were actually objecting to, nor was it the objection you made.