Syndicate
User login
Navigation
MicroEvolution Defined
The various discussions here centered around evolution have often come back to my (and others') distinction between micro and macro evolution. EDogg stated the evolutionist's mindset very well in a recent comment, in that he makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution. We see changes now, thus these small changes over a vast amount of time equate to macro evolution. Small changes add up.
I have tried several times to center the definition on "observed" change as opposed to what has not been observed. But it is obvious that this has led only to further confusion and as such has been a poor definition. So, let me try it from another angle.
Let's distinguish micro and macro on the grounds of information. The micro-evolution we see around us is nothing more than the rearrangement of existing information. There is no creation of new information. Thus the attempted definition of "within bounds". Macro-evolution, from pre-life to us, requires the creation of new information, which we do not see. As a matter of fact, there is no mechanism that I know of to add information.
Now, before you point to mutation, you must recognize that mutation destroys information. Even the handful of beneficial mutations claimed is simply destroying information. So, to propose macro-evolution, one must explain the process that went from no information (pre-genetic chemical cocktails) to me writing this blog.
Be blessed...
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags:
One good definition deserves another
is no mechanism that I know of to add information.
Just because you don't know of one, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
you must recognize that mutation destroys information. Even the handful of beneficial mutations claimed is simply destroying information.
Handful!?!? If there are only a handful, then surely you won't mind listing them for me.
To define evolution in this manner, you'll first have to define "information". Lots has been written about information theory. Some of it applies here, and some doesn't.
Here's some background:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html
So, to propose macro-evolution, one must explain the process that went from no information (pre-genetic chemical cocktails) to me writing this blog.
Once again, evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, despite how you read the popular literature. With that cleared up, a high level understanding of evolution contains our current understanding of the processes at work. There are plenty of examples to show "information" increase.
I'll be waiting for that list...
Just because you don't know
Just because you don't know of one, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Feel free to list.
Here's some background:
Here's some more.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp
Once again, evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, despite how you read the popular literature. With that cleared up, a high level understanding of evolution contains our current understanding of the processes at work. There are plenty of examples to show "information" increase.
With what cleared up? Your statement "clears that up"? That is a cop-out.
I'll be waiting for that list...
See the articles as linked.
Feel free to list. Did you
Feel free to list.
Did you even bother to read the links I offered?
I've read many of yours, and they suffer from the same definition-of-information problems as your statements. As for "handful of beneficial mutations claimed is simply destroying information" , what do you suppose is happening when one of those mutations is reversed (something that's been observed many times)? If it destroys information in one direction, mustn't it gain information to go the other way?
With what cleared up? Your statement "clears that up"? That is a cop-out.
I'm simply trying to get you to see that the evidence for macro-evolution does not require "one [to] explain the process that went from no information (pre-genetic chemical cocktails) to me writing this blog." Macroevolutionary processes may be related to abiogenesis, but you have not shown where proof of one REQUIRES the other to be true.
Clarification
That's why I made the "one or the other" comment. Evolution is sold as a naturalistic, unguided process- one with no outside interference. Abiogenesis is the only possible start of it save a guiding hand.
Period.
Back on topic
Abiogenesis is the only possible start of it save a guiding hand.
Either case doesn't affect the definition or existence of macroevolution.
Here's an example of information adding. When genes replicate, one of the common errors is accidental duplication. That can result in an organism having two copies of the same gene, say one that produces a certain protien. With two copies of that gene, non-lethal mutations to one of them won't stop production of that important protien.
The mutated gene might now produce a slightly different protien, one that provides the organism with a slight benefit. The organism now has more "information" about how to survive in its environment.
Now, all these steps don't happen in one single organism. After the gene duplication in one organism, that neutral modification will likely spread to a significant percentage of the population. Many of the mutations on that extra gene will be detrimental, but those unfortunate creatures get weeded out instantly. It only takees one beneficial mutation to add that "information" and that get's spread to the population pretty fast.
To stick to your claims, you'll have to show how the above scenario isn't feasible in the real world, or you'll have to show why this doesn't constitute additional "information."
Yes, I've read a bit about
Yes, I've read a bit about polyploidy.
I actually did read the links you provided, thus my request for you to list the information-adding polyploidy. I did see a reference to a simulation, and a couple to yeasts and such, but didn't get the details that information was actually added. Since there was a fearful warning against who to trust, I won't bother linking to Dr. Witt's work, which hasn't actually been refuted that I know of.
In one of your links, I actually took most note of the following:
"Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it."
I'm not exactly sure when the linked article containing this quote was written, but I would suggest you read the work on genetic entropy written by Cornel University Professor of Genetics, John Sanford.
The summary of such is that the VAST majority of genetic mutation is detrimental, but only slightly so. There is occasionally (relatively speaking) very detrimental mutations. There is extremely rare "useful" change. But the rest is slightly deleterious. Evolution theory states that natural selection kills off the highly negative changes and promotes the useful over innumerable generations, so the useful changes continue.
The problem here is the almost imperceptible negative changes. They are so imperceptible that natural selection doesn't weed them out. Thus they are preserved and compounded, promoting a degradation of genomes over time, not a positive evolution.
Add to this the fact that natural selection can't select on a mutation-by-mutation basis, but a gene-by-gene basis, then the promotion of degrading genes is assured.
Back to topic:
I claimed a handful of "claimed" information addition examples. You claimed many more via links. I'm sorry, but I saw less than a handful listed in your links.
The articles I linked to cover a few claims and show them as deleterious. Now granted, some may be beneficial to a selective environment (such as wingless beetles or blind fish), but are still shown to be a deletion of information-- i.e a "downhill evolution"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4343Critics_Plantcolour.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp
Further, if there was that much evidence for information addition in nature, I doubt they would have written a computer program to prove its feasibility-- a program which is debunked by the way.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/dawkins.asp
"Information" remains undefined
Yes, I've read a bit about polyploidy.
Polyploidy refers to chromosome duplication, which is quite a bit more extreme than the case I described. It falls into the same general category, I suppose.
I would suggest you read the work on genetic entropy written by Cornel University Professor of Genetics, John Sanford.
The one with the UFO on the cover? I have not read it, but I've seen a few brief reviews. Here's one (two parts):
http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-...
http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-...
It appears that Sanford may suffer from the same definition of information problem as other creationist arguments. I have to wonder, as a genetecist (obviously talented and well-respected), why he would choose to publish his ideas as a popular book, rather than a scientific work with proper references and cited evidence. He's semi-retired and independently wealthy (due to his biotech inventions), so he has little to lose by angering the establishment (something this book would do anyway). Why not bring the big guns, if you have them?
Add to this the fact that natural selection can't select on a mutation-by-mutation basis, but a gene-by-gene basis, then the promotion of degrading genes is assured.
Mutational processes include far more than just single-point events. There are many other types, such as the duplication error mentioned earlier.
I claimed a handful of "claimed" information addition examples. You claimed many more via links. I'm sorry, but I saw less than a handful listed in your links.
I think you're misrepresenting a bit there. I asked YOU to substantiate the "handful" claim, and you deferred to YOUR links. My references were provided to illustrate the problem of defining "information" before applying any information theory to this subject.
I also pointed to my links in reponse to your statement that, "there is no mechanism that I know of to add information." The first link alone lists references to no fewer than 10 scientific papers. I don't expect you to go look all those up (I haven't), but they're out there if you doubt the claims.
Further, if there was that much evidence for information addition in nature, I doubt they would have written a computer program to prove its feasibility-- a program which is debunked by the way.
The debunking has wrongly presented the "weasel" program. That program was not intended to prove information addition. It's purpose was to show the power of recursive selection, as opposed to the tornado+junkyard=747 or monkeys+typewriters=Shakespeare analogies that presume only a single step. Remember when I asked if those monkeys were rewarded along the way?
For an actual computer simluation that does mimick the "information" adding power of evolution, just google "genetic algorithms." These aren't just academic exercises, they work well enough to be used in practical applications.
I think you're
I think you're misrepresenting a bit there.
Then I sincerely apologize. That was not the intent.
Before arguing against a work because of the cover, the author's bank account, or reviews, I would still recommend a read. :)
As to the definition, I think many of them are defining it as "specified complexity", if that helps. You do make a good point, though. Short of a shared definition, we are at an impasse.
Update because I wanted to comment a little more in-depth to your remarks to the book:
The cover: Shows a UFO because of the argument within the text to information content. He uses an example of an airplane assembly manual being turned into an assembly manual for a UFO by random change. Note that this is not the extent of the argument. It uses hard genetic science to make the point.
Peer review: Since leaving the evolutionist crowd, he is no longer considered a peer.
Semi-retirement: His career was no longer threatened by leaving the establishment.
Bank account: As you mentioned, he made a hefty deal of money for inventing the "gene-gun", which bolsters his credentials.
Note also in the book that he described his journey to writing the book. It is of extreme interest that he was an atheistic evolutionist. He does not find evolution false because he is a Christian. He is a Christian because he found evolution false.
Negative reviews: Don't surprise me at all.
Take care.
The problem of directionality in micro-evolution
One major problem I see with simply extrapolating observable micro-evolution to justify macro-evolution is that the changes observed in micro-evolution are directional, or at least not linearly directional, but variations around a mean. In other words it circles a more or less fixed standard. If something goes in circles, it doesn't go too far regardless of how much time you give it.
Here is an article from Science Magazine by the highly-respected couple that has done years of research on the famous Galápagos Island finches that gives reason to doubt that macro-evolution can be assumed from micro-evolution:
Unpredictable Evolution in a 30-Year Study of Darwin's Finches
by Peter R. Grant, B. Rosemary Grant
From the Abstract: Evolution can be predicted in the short term from a knowledge of selection and inheritance. However, in the long term evolution is unpredictable because environments, which determine the directions and magnitudes of selection coefficients, fluctuate unpredictably.
Directionality
One major problem I see with simply extrapolating observable micro-evolution to justify macro-evolution is that the changes observed in micro-evolution are directional, or at least not linearly directional, but variations around a mean. In other words it circles a more or less fixed standard. If something goes in circles, it doesn't go too far regardless of how much time you give it.
That's expected in a static environment. Big changes in the environment drive the big evolutionary changes. I wouldn't expect finches in a relatively static environment to change much over a 30 year period. Change the environment drastically or transport the population somewhere else, and the game changes.
The problem is that it's tough to observe these kinds of changes in the real environment during the short time we're here. We can simulate these things in the lab by forcing big selection pressures, and the results show bigger changes that we'd expect. We still don't have the kind of time required to produce the changes that would satisfy the demands of most creationists.
A word about directionality: Evolution does not have a direction. Organisms can go towards complexity or simplicity. It's all determined by the environment and selection pressures. Just because humans are complex multi-cellular animals doesn't mean we've had the most evolution. Every living creature today is the result of the same amount of evolutionary time.