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

Edited as per your request.

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.

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.

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.

Taq, are you trying to tell me that all life on earth evolved from a potatoe? Last time I checked the current Threory is that all life on earth evolved from a single micro-organism.

No, the question is can they...This is the second definition from Species Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary Can they have fertile offspring? For example Mules and Horses cannot have fertile offspring. They are different species.If they can have fertile offspring then there is always chance that their populations can recombine and become one single population again thus immobilizing divergent evolution.I understand now why it is so difficult to actually resolve this whole evolution/creationism debate. No one will even agree on a simple definition. I feel like you people are just beating around the bush to avoid the real point, that there is no evidence to support the idea of macro-evolution. So you have to change the definitions to suite your theory.

NoNukes... that is exactly what I am saying in my original post... I am saying the first micro-organism would have to be a very simple bacteria, not a complex organism with many genes. I am pretty sure that is what other scientist say as well. Prokaryote - WikipediaProkaryotes have less genetic information than humans.

Thank You Just Being Real.

Thanks Blue Jay, I don't think it is not "ok" for a Mormon to believe in evolution. I believe that is totally the wrong question. That question seems to me to be more of a question whether it is socially acceptable or not. The real question is, "Is the data conclusive or not?" I have come to my own conclusion that the data is totally inconclusive about the "facts" of evolution by decent from a common ancestor. This is very different than what they actually teach you in high school when you are young and impressionable and will basically believe whatever the "authorities" tell you unless you have good parents who know better. If I have then I am sorry, please quote me on this, where have I held a double standard? again as far as I know I have not used any arguments that are not completely logical and based on well proven facts. That is what I believe is necessary to prove the point of speciation according to the definition.For example dogs have not speciated in over "15,000" years according to modern popular science. After all that selective breeding they can still be repopulated with the Gray Wolf. Therefore they are not different species. Speciation - Wikipedia Species - WikipediaSo if you want to classify a new species you have to prove that they cannot have fertile offspring. Otherwise you are just assuming, and if the original assumption is wrong, well that throws a big monkey wrench in the whole thing.Therefore in order to prove that speciation actually happens by evolution then you have to prove they are different species don't you.Darwin assumed that all of these different "species" of finches on the Galapagos Islands were different species didn't he? This was his evidence for the evolution of all species on earth from a single common ancestor. Just because they have different size beaks does not make them different species. He used Accident Fallacies to prove his point and they are still used today over and over. Just because we accept B does not mean that we have to accept A or C. He just they just assume A like you are going to accept it, because they assumed it and it works. Many people are convinced.Many classification of species has been totally misplaced, there are less species than what actually is classified and recorded. That is the basic argument of Creationism. It is true too. There has never been an actual recorded speciation event. Many of the species that people classify can actually be classified into one species.Besides that if you look up the line in the phylogenetic tree, many of the classifications don't even have solid definitions. Such as Genus, Family and Order. Genus - Wikipedia Scientists cannot even confidently classify species. They don't even follow a solid definition of Species. What does that say about the entire theory of evolution from a common ancestor? Very shaky indeed. Kinda like the great and spacious building without a foundation at all, or the foolish man who built his house upon the sand.

NoNukes, I love how you make broad claims that you don't support at all. Makes me think you cannot support your claims.

yes, that is what I meant thank you. I am saying that that is the definition of a species. Those two animals cannot have fertile offspring. They are different species.

Granny Magda
Would you say that the Chihuahua and the Great Dane are recognizably the same? Yet they are the same species (Canis Lupus).... just different subspecies.I would classify Lions and Tigers the same species but different subspecies and they should be.

Good point. Artificial insemination would probably be the only option for those two. If you did that they might be able to have fertile offspring.but you could mix larger breeds with the chihuahua and smaller breeds with the Dane together until you get them to mix back together over a period of a couple generations.

In what way does it not fit my definitions?