Clades and Kinds

quote:

---

Because although we recognize micro-evolution, we make a distinction between this and macro-evolution. I tried to explain it on another thread, but in brief, macro requires that it is possible to gain information through mutations. If you do not have this in your hypothetical universe, then macro-evolution is impossible. However, even in such a universe, micro would still be possible.

---

So what measure of information are you using ? What are the grounds for saying that creationist macroevolution requires it, and what are the grounds for saying that mutations cannot increase it ?

quote:

---

I don't want to derail this topic off to another discussion of the word ''information'' and what meaning it can/should/could have. What I can say, is that Shannon information is an incomplete description of the reality of information.

---

I'm not looking for an all-embracing definition. Just to know specifically what this information you are referring to is, and how to work out if it has increased or not.

quote:

---

I don't really get how you distinguish creationist macroevolution and evolutionist macroevolution, because both are the same.

---

No, they aren't. By the standard scientific definition speciation is macroevolution. However many creationists accept that speciation has happened - but call it microevolution. Even the hyper-macroevolution (by evolutionary terms) some creationists believe happened after the Flood is called microevolution, even though it involves the formation of new genera.

quote:

---

This is all very debatable, but it is not the focus of this thread. The point is that micro-evolution could happen through a loss of information or a gain of information, whereas macro-evolution requires gain of information. This is the distinction I am trying to make.

---

That is the creationist definition. The trouble is that "information" seems to be an imaginary quantity used solely to deny evolution.