nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: + + + + + +
Talk:Patterns of biological evolution (view source)
Revision as of 14:08, May 25, 2007
, 14:08, May 25, 2007→Additional New Genetic Information: On measuring information, etc.
::It is interesting that you postulated that evolutionists claim any change as evolution, this is untrue. Whereas bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance through two different methods, by chromosomal DNA or by plasmid DNA, only the mutations in the chromosomal DNA would count as evolutionary. This is due to bacteria freely sharing plasmid DNA with each other in their colonies. The ability to share the information would be an evolutionary step but the actual sharing of information would not be, if based on the plasmid DNA transfers. However, mutation in the chromosomal DNA does allow for the progeny of the bacteria to have the same resistance from the parent bacteria. So, an example of what is and what would not be evolution. There are specific mechanisms that are classified as evolutionary, however it takes a very educated person in the biological sciences to be able to point out several of these mechanisms, and I can only list a few and all dealing with molecular systems. So the general layman does not have the background often to distinguish the differences in what constitutes as evolution and what does not, often enough most just label it all as evolution by default. A Biologist (any specialty) would not make a sweeping generalization of the mechanisms if they understood that their audience understood some of the finer points of the science. This, however, happens in many field of study.
::It is interesting that you postulated that evolutionists claim any change as evolution, this is untrue. Whereas bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance through two different methods, by chromosomal DNA or by plasmid DNA, only the mutations in the chromosomal DNA would count as evolutionary. This is due to bacteria freely sharing plasmid DNA with each other in their colonies. The ability to share the information would be an evolutionary step but the actual sharing of information would not be, if based on the plasmid DNA transfers. However, mutation in the chromosomal DNA does allow for the progeny of the bacteria to have the same resistance from the parent bacteria. So, an example of what is and what would not be evolution. There are specific mechanisms that are classified as evolutionary, however it takes a very educated person in the biological sciences to be able to point out several of these mechanisms, and I can only list a few and all dealing with molecular systems. So the general layman does not have the background often to distinguish the differences in what constitutes as evolution and what does not, often enough most just label it all as evolution by default. A Biologist (any specialty) would not make a sweeping generalization of the mechanisms if they understood that their audience understood some of the finer points of the science. This, however, happens in many field of study.
::I will have to look through it a while to see about any changes, I will list them on the talk if I find any.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::I will have to look through it a while to see about any changes, I will list them on the talk if I find any.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::: I don't believe that I ever said that the size of the genome and complexity. You seem to be assuming that [[information]] can be measured by the size of the genome, but this is only a Shannon or statistical definition of information, suitable for calculating storage and transmission capacity of data, but not a measure of the amount of information. I've just updated [[Information#Measuring_information|Information]] to explain this point.
::: Creationary scientists these days avoid talking about microevolution and macroevolotion[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#micro_macro], because it misses the point about [[information]]. And the point is that the generation of new genetic information is not an extrapolation of the loss of genetic information; they are opposites, not one a larger version of the other. So your entire argument about based on the similarity between micro- and macro-evolution misses the point. Incidentally, use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution has not been exclusively by creationists.
::: The rate of human growth that you mention is a rationalisation, not an observation.
::: As for the claim that any change is evolution, I may have overstated the case a touch, but when evolutionists define evolution as "[[definitions of evolution#Gene_frequency|any change in gene frequency in a population]]", that comes pretty darned close. And I've seen transfer of genetic material used by evolutionists attempting to refute the creationist anti-evolutionary argument that no increase in genetic information has been observed. In effect, they are quoting that as an example of evolution.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)