|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does microevolution logically include macroevolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Your reply seems to contradict your previous claim:
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Natural selection is the selective force in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024