Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 195 (217094)
06-15-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
06-13-2005 2:36 PM


It is worth noting that the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution varies depend on who you are talking to,
Biologists usually define macroevolution as evolutionary change at the species or higher taxonomic levels (e.g. speciation and the founding of higher taxonomic groups).
Creationists typically define microevolution as "within a kind" but offer no clear way to determine what is a kind or not. Often it is claimed that all individuals with a common ancestor are automatically within the same kind, which would mean that all evolution is "microevolution", no matter how great the change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 06-13-2005 2:36 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by robinrohan, posted 06-15-2005 10:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 195 (217117)
06-15-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by robinrohan
06-15-2005 10:37 AM


Species isn't that simple at all there are a number of species concepts in use - and for good reason (we can't apply ideas based on interbreeding to species which do not sexually reproduce or to fossil species for instance). I do know of one case of two recognised species which DO interbreed now that they have come into contact - but their appearance is distinct enough that that is also a factor. I am not aware of any case where geographical isolation alone is considered sufficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by robinrohan, posted 06-15-2005 10:37 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 195 (238935)
08-31-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 9:44 AM


To list some of the errors in Sarfati's claims:
1) There is no requirement for the gene to be deactivated (and therefore no requirement for it to be reactivated).
2) The genetic code is highly redundant and therefore the number of possible proteins a gene of a given length could code for is significantly smaller than the number of differnet combinations of the bases.
3) We cannot say that there has not been enough time unless we know the number of useful proteins and how they are distributed in sequence space relative to the mechanisms of mutation - factors Sarfati completely ignores.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 9:44 AM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 3:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 55 of 195 (239032)
08-31-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 12:56 PM


So would a substitution of one base for another constitute a gain of information ?
If not, then how about a mutation that changes an amino acid in the protein a gene codes for ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 12:56 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 57 of 195 (239090)
08-31-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 3:05 PM


In answer
1) So far as I know it is something that can happen, but it isn't really part of the process. Therefore it doesn't have a role.
2) For every 3 bases there are 20 possible amino acids. And 64 possible combinatiosn of bases. So for 999 bases there are:
about 10^433 possible proteins
(if we include stop codons as a 21st possibility then there are still only about 10^440 possibilities)
and about 10^601 possible combinations of bases (got by dividing Sarfati's 10^602 by 4 and rounding down).
That's an error factor of more than 10^160 - the SQUARE of the number Sarfati gives as the number of atoms in the universe.
The correct number is still huge but insignificant in comparison to the number Sardati gives.
3) Is a vital point. The proportion of sequences that make functionaal proteins is far more important than absolute numbers. If 99% of possible proteins were functional you'd have a 99% chance of hitting one by chance in a single try, no matter how large the space of possible proteins. And for Sarfati's calculation to be right there would have to be only one sequence that gave a functional protein which is just plain wrong.
The question of distribution makes it worse - if there are clusters of functional proteins relative to the available mutational pathways then the probability of a mutation to a gene producing a functional protein would be higher than randomly picking a protein.
I'm not sure what factors your link ( http://itw.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Capstone/2000/hoffman.html ) is supposed to be talking about. I can't see anything in Dawkin's scientific writing as egregious as Sarfati's errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 3:05 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 59 of 195 (239111)
08-31-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 4:05 PM


Your reply seems to contradict your previous claim:
quote:
When you change the word wing into wong you are required to drop the i and replace it with an o. The O was not in the original word so it must be added. That would suggest macro-evolution.
It seems to be that by analogy a similar substitution ot a gene or the protein it codes for should be considered "macro-evolution" on the same grounds.
The "lost information" objection doesn't seem to apply since "wong" is not an English word and so according to your new claim it would also be a loss of "information".
So if substituting a letter in a word would "suggest of macro-evolution" why not a substitution of an a amino acid in a gene or the protein a gene codes for ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:05 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 195 (239127)
08-31-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 4:27 PM


Dawkins
Your example doesn't show Dawkins omitting anything. The "weasel" program illustrates the fact that a series of gradual changes plus a selective force can be dramatically more effective than random sampling. That's all it's meant to do. Dawkins is quite open about the fact that it is not a simulation of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:27 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 5:54 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 195 (239130)
08-31-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 4:36 PM


Specified Complexity
Well if you're going to use the term "specified complexity" in that sense don't confuse it with Dembski's usage (which I prefer to call "specified high improbability").
So in the case of a gene mutating what would count as a gain rather than a loss of information ? Can you offer a consistent measure ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:36 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 5:04 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 66 of 195 (239151)
08-31-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 5:04 PM


Re: Specified Complexity
Well it's just typical of the creationist use of "information". They don't ever offer a reliable way to quantify it so no increase can ever be shown to their satisfaction. So really there isn't an argument - just an assertion that is made in such an evasive way that the creationist never has to accept that it isn't true. That's not a valid objection to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 5:04 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 195 (239168)
08-31-2005 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 5:54 PM


Re: Dawkins
The "objective" and "the aid of the program" are the selective force in the example. That's a necessary part of the process. If you omitted the selection you wouldn't make the program any more like evolution - you'd be making it even less like evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 5:54 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 6:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 195 (239175)
08-31-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 6:12 PM


Re: Dawkins
Natural selection is the selective force in evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 6:12 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 7:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 94 of 195 (239370)
09-01-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 7:10 PM


Re: Dawkins
The selective algorithm in Dawkins' program also only weeded out variations tat were already there. Evolution depends on the generation of variation and the selection of those variants. It is the combination of those two factors that is required, not one working alone.
So evolution can explain specified complexity. Mutations (sometimes) generate greater complexity, yet selection enforces a degree of specification upon the mutations that are retained in the genome. And by definition natural selection favours beneficial mutations (and therefore those that make genes bneficial - or more so) over those that are detrimental.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 7:10 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 12:11 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 99 of 195 (239538)
09-01-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 12:11 PM


Re: Dawkins
I don't know where you got that from but whoever wrote it doesn't have much of a clue.
THe weasel program is not intended as a representation of evolution (as I already pointed out)
The weasel program does NOT assume that "dice have memory" (how do we know ? Because it uses random variations itself - with no memory)
"Weasel casino" is apparently "more realistic" because it assuems that detrimental mutations don't occur. (Why is THAT realistic ?)
And what on earth would an "incomplete" protein be ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 12:11 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 12:46 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 106 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 2:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 104 of 195 (239565)
09-01-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 1:05 PM


Two points.
Firstly if you quote material you should credit your source at the very least. And according to the rules of this forum you should try "make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references"
Secondly research should include a bit of discrimination. You should try to filter out unreliable and inaccurate information (which means that most creationist sites are mainly useful as sources for creationist views). That's not to say that creatinist claims are always false or misleading - just often enough that they need to be checked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 1:05 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 195 (239644)
09-01-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 2:34 PM


Re: Dawkins
The random element has no memory. The memory element is in the selective part of the algorithm. And in that respect it is like evolution. Criticising the weasel program for too closely resembling evolution is pretty perverse.
And I am afrad that your explanation of an "incomplete protein" makes it seme irrelevant to evolution. I don't think that we need to consider what happens if the developmental process is disrupted by outside forces. (Although your comments about vwegetables make no sense)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 2:34 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 4:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024