3 ms·

Micro-evolution is defined as changes (mutation) or loss of DNA. This happens all the time, much to the chagrin of anti-biotic researchers. Macro-evolution is

by toss1941 10y ago

Micro-evolution is defined as changes (mutation) or loss of DNA. This happens all the time, much to the chagrin of anti-biotic researchers. Macro-evolution is defined as addition to the DNA (new information never before seen on that oranism).

splawn 10y ago
defined by who? the discovery institute? Edit: Looks like some might not like the lack of detail in this comment. So.... In case anyone doesn't know "the discovery institute" is a group of creationists that tried to get creationism taught as science in public schools.[1] And redefining and inventing terminology to serve their purposes without requiring any scientific basis for it is something right out of their playbook. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Why is mutation necessarily a loss of information, and also what do you think about whole-gene duplication events.
0xfeba 10y ago
Interesting, I've never heard this definition before. Seems to combine two common creationist claims against evolution: 1) No new information can be created 2) Sure, microevolution, but we've never seen macroevolution Where did you get these definitions? What is your definition of "new information"? New genes? Because that happens all the time. Fox example in humans, Fragile X syndrome causes a gene to be repeated (inserted[1]) too many times. But that's been "seen before" so perhaps it is off topic. In E. Coli and common yeast we've seen new genes added to be able to process different substances as food[2][3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) [2] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html [3] http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract The common creationist response at this point is that "It's still yeast/bacteria. It's not going to evolve into a cat.", to which our (biologists) response is that it very well could given enough time. And so since "new information" has been demonstrated, and natural selection ("microevolution") accepted by creationists, it's up to creationists to show us what exactly prevents organisms from evolving past human created naming barriers. That is, since we know that gene mutations happen and won't stop happening as long as organisms keep reproducing, what keeps a population from evolving passed the species/genus/family/"kind" barrier? The answer is nothing, except time. Time is why you don't see the bacteria evolve into a cat.
- toss1941 10y ago
  It's a good question, I don't really have a good answer, just a theory: An analogy I've heard is that if it's possible for (in your example) yeast to evolve into a cat given enough time, then it should also be possible for a room full of monkeys randomly mashing on keys to collectively type a perfect replica of War and Peace (or insert other long book here). Put another way, imagine there's a computer with a random number generator spitting out letters (1-52 (a-z,A-Z, ignoring punct) in perfect randomness. How long would it take the computer to create 'War and Peace'? I think, while it would be a physical possibility for the Monkey's to create such a book, it would never happen no matter how much time passed because given the parameters of randomness, it would effectively be impossible to form something so linear and guided. And compared to an organism, 'war and peace' wouldn't even account to a single cell's worth of DNA which is insanely complex with so many parts that must exist simultaneously with others for the cell to survive. Edit: I fully understand the "X Billions of years and at least many chances per second for life for a yeast cell to evolve into a chicken", but i'm of the belief you cannot get high order out of chaos. There are patterns and there are many possibilities but it's never been proven that they happen other than the assumption that "God doesn't exist/made things through evolution and we know they exist and can't prove God exists, therefore we know/believe that such an insanely ordered thing must have formed out of chaos".
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > An analogy I've heard is that if it's possible for (in your example) yeast to evolve into a cat given enough time, then it should also be possible for a room full of monkeys randomly mashing on keys to collectively type a perfect replica of War and Peace (or insert other long book here). Replace the monkeys with a fair random number generator, and not only is it possible, but once you have defined the keys available and the output sought and other parameters, you can mathematically calculate the average number of steps before the RNG generates the work in question. (The answer is not never, though it may be very long.) But evolution isn't like that anyway. You aren't randomly generating a sequence until you generate the genetic code for a cat, for instance. > And compared to an organism, 'war and peace' wouldn't even account to a single cell's worth of DNA which is insanely complex with so many parts that must exist simultaneously with others to coexist. This is the classic creationist argument from irreducible complexity, which is basically an argument from a failure of imagination -- one of the things we keep learning as we understand more about the paths on which things evolved is that features which seem irreducibly complex in living things actually do have incremental evolutionary paths where there is function at steps along the route.

splawn 10y ago

defined by who? the discovery institute? Edit: Looks like some might not like the lack of detail in this comment. So.... In case anyone doesn't know "the discovery institute" is a group of creationists that tried to get creationism taught as science in public schools.[1] And redefining and inventing terminology to serve their purposes without requiring any scientific basis for it is something right out of their playbook. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

Why is mutation necessarily a loss of information, and also what do you think about whole-gene duplication events.

0xfeba 10y ago

Interesting, I've never heard this definition before. Seems to combine two common creationist claims against evolution: 1) No new information can be created 2) Sure, microevolution, but we've never seen macroevolution Where did you get these definitions? What is your definition of "new information"? New genes? Because that happens all the time. Fox example in humans, Fragile X syndrome causes a gene to be repeated (inserted[1]) too many times. But that's been "seen before" so perhaps it is off topic. In E. Coli and common yeast we've seen new genes added to be able to process different substances as food[2][3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) [2] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html [3] http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract The common creationist response at this point is that "It's still yeast/bacteria. It's not going to evolve into a cat.", to which our (biologists) response is that it very well could given enough time. And so since "new information" has been demonstrated, and natural selection ("microevolution") accepted by creationists, it's up to creationists to show us what exactly prevents organisms from evolving past human created naming barriers. That is, since we know that gene mutations happen and won't stop happening as long as organisms keep reproducing, what keeps a population from evolving passed the species/genus/family/"kind" barrier? The answer is nothing, except time. Time is why you don't see the bacteria evolve into a cat.

toss1941 10y ago
It's a good question, I don't really have a good answer, just a theory: An analogy I've heard is that if it's possible for (in your example) yeast to evolve into a cat given enough time, then it should also be possible for a room full of monkeys randomly mashing on keys to collectively type a perfect replica of War and Peace (or insert other long book here). Put another way, imagine there's a computer with a random number generator spitting out letters (1-52 (a-z,A-Z, ignoring punct) in perfect randomness. How long would it take the computer to create 'War and Peace'? I think, while it would be a physical possibility for the Monkey's to create such a book, it would never happen no matter how much time passed because given the parameters of randomness, it would effectively be impossible to form something so linear and guided. And compared to an organism, 'war and peace' wouldn't even account to a single cell's worth of DNA which is insanely complex with so many parts that must exist simultaneously with others for the cell to survive. Edit: I fully understand the "X Billions of years and at least many chances per second for life for a yeast cell to evolve into a chicken", but i'm of the belief you cannot get high order out of chaos. There are patterns and there are many possibilities but it's never been proven that they happen other than the assumption that "God doesn't exist/made things through evolution and we know they exist and can't prove God exists, therefore we know/believe that such an insanely ordered thing must have formed out of chaos".
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > An analogy I've heard is that if it's possible for (in your example) yeast to evolve into a cat given enough time, then it should also be possible for a room full of monkeys randomly mashing on keys to collectively type a perfect replica of War and Peace (or insert other long book here). Replace the monkeys with a fair random number generator, and not only is it possible, but once you have defined the keys available and the output sought and other parameters, you can mathematically calculate the average number of steps before the RNG generates the work in question. (The answer is not never, though it may be very long.) But evolution isn't like that anyway. You aren't randomly generating a sequence until you generate the genetic code for a cat, for instance. > And compared to an organism, 'war and peace' wouldn't even account to a single cell's worth of DNA which is insanely complex with so many parts that must exist simultaneously with others to coexist. This is the classic creationist argument from irreducible complexity, which is basically an argument from a failure of imagination -- one of the things we keep learning as we understand more about the paths on which things evolved is that features which seem irreducibly complex in living things actually do have incremental evolutionary paths where there is function at steps along the route.