Evidence for macro-evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

Micro evolution over millions of years = macro evolution.

The difference lies not so much in the scale as in the direction.

Micro evolution occurs through mutating and disrupting the original function of a gene.
giving you flightless birds or sightless fish for example.

And in niche environments a loss of function can certainly endow an advantage.

But you cannot evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being (i.e. macro evolution) by merely destroying genetic function already found in the bacteria, you need the exact opposite phenomenon, the introduction of huge volumes of entirely novel genetic function.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The difference lies not so much in the scale as in the direction.

Micro evolution occurs through mutating and disrupting the original function of a gene.
giving you flightless birds or sightless fish for example.

And in niche environments a loss of function can certainly endow an advantage.

But you cannot evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being (i.e. macro evolution) by merely destroying genetic function already found in the bacteria, you need the exact opposite phenomenon, the introduction of huge volumes of entirely novel genetic function.

Says who?

 

[sfs]

Micro evolution occurs through mutating and disrupting the original function of a gene.

Where did you get that idea? Most microevolution (and most macroevolution, for that matter) involves changes to regulation of genes, changes that modestly change some trait. Other microevolution occurs through mutations that change but do not disrupt genes, through changes that do disrupt genes, and through changes that add genes -- and likewise for macroevolution. To the extent that geneticists have been able to determine, the genetic processes in micro- and macroevolution are the same.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Where did you get that idea? Most microevolution (and most macroevolution, for that matter) involves changes to regulation of genes, changes that modestly change some trait. Other microevolution occurs through mutations that change but do not disrupt genes, through changes that do disrupt genes, and through changes that add genes -- and likewise for macroevolution. To the extent that geneticists have been able to determine, the genetic processes in micro- and macroevolution are the same.

No disagreement here, but there's your trouble.

mutations can alter regulation of genes (disrupting the original function/regulation) or they can have no effect (no microevolution occurring) or duplicate existing genes (no microevolution occurring), or disable the gene (devolution) etc.

These are the sort of errors you would expect from randomly corrupting any digital information.

But this is not enough for macroevolution to occur, for that you need the creation of new functional genes capable of describing new functional proteins, cell types, organs, biological novelty, this is not something we can observe occurring empirically, and is mathematically highly problematic.

 

[Shemjaza]

No disagreement here, but there's your trouble.

mutations can alter regulation of genes (disrupting the original function/regulation) or they can have no effect (no microevolution occurring) or duplicate existing genes (no microevolution occurring), or disable the gene (devolution) etc.

These are the sort of errors you would expect from randomly corrupting any digital information.

But this is not enough for macroevolution to occur, for that you need the creation of new functional genes capable of describing new functional proteins, cell types, organs, biological novelty, this is not something we can observe occurring empirically, and is mathematically highly problematic.

Disruption of an original function can be synonymous with creating a new function... especially since you have accepted that duplication is possible allowing an original function to happily continue onward.

For example a wing is a pretty cruddy hand... but extremely useful as a wing.

You mention probability... do you have any calculations to back that up? (And I don't mean calculations assuming a specific outcome).


(Also, devolution isn't a thing.)

 

[Astrid]

Disruption of an original function can be synonymous with creating a new function... especially since you have accepted that duplication is possible allowing an original function to happily continue onward.

For example a wing is a pretty cruddy hand... but extremely useful as a wing.

You mention probability... do you have any calculations to back that up? (And I don't mean calculations assuming a specific outcome).


(Also, devolution isn't a thing.)

Original function is awful hard to pin down.

 

[Astrid]

Says who?

Typically such things are just made up to suit.

 

[Shemjaza]

Original function is awful hard to pin down.

It's also ultimately irrelevant to evolution. It doesn't matter that our ear bones used to be a part of our amniote ancestors jaws, they make pretty excellent ear enhancements now.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Disruption of an original function can be synonymous with creating a new function... especially since you have accepted that duplication is possible allowing an original function to happily continue onward.

For example a wing is a pretty cruddy hand... but extremely useful as a wing.

You mention probability... do you have any calculations to back that up? (And I don't mean calculations assuming a specific outcome).


(Also, devolution isn't a thing.)

Well yes, I have several old car batteries that serve a new function- weights for woodworking projects.

The problem is the same; entropy, in this case mutation, degrades the specificity of the information. And this is a one way street-
Entropy will not spontaneously restore an old battery or restore flight to an ostrich.

Similarly a bear may LOSE the ability to produce pigment in it's fur, and yes, this provides a useful 'new' function as camouflage in the arctic.
And this is what we observe and describe as micro-evolution

But again it represents a degradation of original function which is not reversible by the same process; that is why this represents devolution in this context, the bear has lost a genetic function it cannot regain- it's an evolutionary dead-end.

Probability depends on specific examples- but there will always be infinitely more random mutations that will destroy the specificity of information, rather than enhance it.

 

[Astrid]

It's also ultimately irrelevant to evolution. It doesn't matter that our ear bones used to be a part of our amniote ancestors jaws, they make pretty excellent ear enhancements now.

Jaws that derive from gill arches

 

[sfs]

No disagreement here, but there's your trouble.

I'm pretty sure we disagree about pretty much everything here.

mutations can alter regulation of genes (disrupting the original function/regulation) or they can have no effect (no microevolution occurring) or duplicate existing genes (no microevolution occurring), or disable the gene (devolution) etc.

You can label a change to the function of a gene -- that is, a change to a trait that the gene affects -- as 'disruption', but that's just slapping a negative label on it. The reality is that changes to gene regulation can change traits in beneficial ways. For example, a change to the size of a bird's beak that enables it to change diet in a changing climate isn't a loss of information -- it's a change in information and a change in function. The result is beneficial microevolution. Likewise, a mutation in modern humans that changed a single amino acid in the gene TKTL1 'disrupted the original function' in a sense: instead of helping generate a large neocortex in human ancestors, the mutated version now helps generate an even larger neocortex.

The same is true for duplication of genes: duplications often change traits because of a change in the amount of protein produced. This is often deleterious and eliminated by natural selection, but sometimes it's beneficial, e.g. in the multiple copies of the amylase gene in humans or the multiple copies of the gene pfMDR in malaria parasites that are exposed to antimalarial drugs. And sometimes after a gene is duplicated, one copy acquires a new function via mutation, e.g. the gene ARHGAP11B, which is another gene that contributes to human brain development.

Changes like these are not disruptions, and they can easily accumulate over time to produce macroevolution. In short, everything that you think doesn't happen in microevolution does in fact happen. Which leads to repeat my question: where are you getting your ideas about evolution from? Whoever is responsible, they don't seem to know anything about the scientific literature on the subject.

The problem is the same; entropy, in this case mutation, degrades the specificity of the information.

Sorry, but that's more misinformation. What you're describing is not entropy, which is a well-defined concept in physics. Have you studied any physics? Mutation has virtually no effect on the entropy of DNA or the organism that carries it, and what change there is can go in either direction.

Probability depends on specific examples- but there will always be infinitely more random mutations that will destroy the specificity of information, rather than enhance it.

As stated, that's trivially false. There are a finite number of possible mutations for a given size genome, not an infinite number. And it's easy to show that specific functions can in fact be generated by random mutations to DNA.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm pretty sure we disagree about pretty much everything here.

You can label a change to the function of a gene -- that is, a change to a trait that the gene affects -- as 'disruption', but that's just slapping a negative label on it. The reality is that changes to gene regulation can change traits in beneficial ways. For example, a change to the size of a bird's beak that enables it to change diet in a changing climate isn't a loss of information -- it's a change in information and a change in function. The result is beneficial microevolution. Likewise, a mutation in modern humans that changed a single amino acid in the gene TKTL1 'disrupted the original function' in a sense: instead of helping generate a large neocortex in human ancestors, the mutated version now helps generate an even larger neocortex.

The same is true for duplication of genes: duplications often change traits because of a change in the amount of protein produced. This is often deleterious and eliminated by natural selection, but sometimes it's beneficial, e.g. in the multiple copies of the amylase gene in humans or the multiple copies of the gene pfMDR in malaria parasites that are exposed to antimalarial drugs. And sometimes after a gene is duplicated, one copy acquires a new function via mutation, e.g. the gene ARHGAP11B, which is another gene that contributes to human brain development.

Changes like these are not disruptions, and they can easily accumulate over time to produce macroevolution. In short, everything that you think doesn't happen in microevolution does in fact happen. Which leads to repeat my question: where are you getting your ideas about evolution from? Whoever is responsible, they don't seem to know anything about the scientific literature on the subject.

Sorry, but that's more misinformation. What you're describing is not entropy, which is a well-defined concept in physics. Have you studied any physics? Mutation has virtually no effect on the entropy of DNA or the organism that carries it, and what change there is can go in either direction.

As stated, that's trivially false. There are a finite number of possible mutations for a given size genome, not an infinite number. And it's easy to show that specific functions can in fact be generated by random mutations to DNA.

Antibacterial resistance is another very good example.

What we can identify is that a certain mutation in a bacteria can DISABLE its ability to digest certain chemical compounds including the active ingredient of the antibacterial agent.

Of course this is a benefit, at least in a niche environment where the agent is present, just as the polar bear has an advantage in it's niche environment after LOSING the ability to produce pigment. But you have to make the distinction between a benefit and a gain/loss of novel functional information. Again these are not reversible losses.

I do take your point, disruption of regulatory genes in microevolution can cause a beneficial, superficial, morphological alteration - especially in simple tissues like beaks, horns, claws, hair- and you may call the information gain/loss a wash- though that's a semantic point. More objectively- they do not explain how these novel features originated on the macro scale.

Ultimately, you cannot macro-evolve a bacteria into a human being, by merely deactivating biological features that already exist in the bacteria.

 

[Astrid]

I'm pretty sure we disagree about pretty much everything here.

You can label a change to the function of a gene -- that is, a change to a trait that the gene affects -- as 'disruption', but that's just slapping a negative label on it. The reality is that changes to gene regulation can change traits in beneficial ways. For example, a change to the size of a bird's beak that enables it to change diet in a changing climate isn't a loss of information -- it's a change in information and a change in function. The result is beneficial microevolution. Likewise, a mutation in modern humans that changed a single amino acid in the gene TKTL1 'disrupted the original function' in a sense: instead of helping generate a large neocortex in human ancestors, the mutated version now helps generate an even larger neocortex.

The same is true for duplication of genes: duplications often change traits because of a change in the amount of protein produced. This is often deleterious and eliminated by natural selection, but sometimes it's beneficial, e.g. in the multiple copies of the amylase gene in humans or the multiple copies of the gene pfMDR in malaria parasites that are exposed to antimalarial drugs. And sometimes after a gene is duplicated, one copy acquires a new function via mutation, e.g. the gene ARHGAP11B, which is another gene that contributes to human brain development.

Changes like these are not disruptions, and they can easily accumulate over time to produce macroevolution. In short, everything that you think doesn't happen in microevolution does in fact happen. Which leads to repeat my question: where are you getting your ideas about evolution from? Whoever is responsible, they don't seem to know anything about the scientific literature on the subject.

Sorry, but that's more misinformation. What you're describing is not entropy, which is a well-defined concept in physics. Have you studied any physics? Mutation has virtually no effect on the entropy of DNA or the organism that carries it, and what change there is can go in either direction.

As stated, that's trivially false. There are a finite number of possible mutations for a given size genome, not an infinite number. And it's easy to show that specific functions can in fact be generated by random mutations to DNA.

Dont give another answer till you get an
answer. (Q on where info comes from)

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem is the same; entropy, in this case mutation, degrades the specificity of the information. And this is a one way street-
Entropy will not spontaneously restore an old battery or restore flight to an ostrich.

Life, like the whole of the surface of the Earth, is an open system with an external energy source. Getting to low entropy is certainly possible and life and other self-organizing processes are good at it. The specificity of the information is irrelevant (and possibly nonsense) and nothing about entropy stops any mutation from occurring randomly or being reversed.

 

[sfs]

Antibacterial resistance is another very good example.

What we can identify is that a certain mutation in a bacteria can DISABLE its ability to digest certain chemical compounds including the active ingredient of the antibacterial agent.

Once again: where did you get the idea that that's the only mechanism for antibacterial resistance? A major mechanism of penicillin resistance, for example, is an enzyme (beta-lactamase) that chemically attacks the antibiotic -- it's not the loss of anything. We also know, because it's been demonstrated experimentally, that beta-lactamase activity can arise spontaneously in randomly mutated proteins and that a small number of mutations can convert a protein with a different function into a beta-lactamase.

Every point you've argued here has been scientifically incorrect. Why do you continue to trust sources that are always wrong? And why won't you tell us where you are getting this information from?

 

[Astrid]

Once again: where did you get the idea that that's the only mechanism for antibacterial resistance? A major mechanism of penicillin resistance, for example, is an enzyme (beta-lactamase) that chemically attacks the antibiotic -- it's not the loss of anything. We also know, because it's been demonstrated experimentally, that beta-lactamase activity can arise spontaneously in randomly mutated proteins and that a small number of mutations can convert a protein with a different function into a beta-lactamase.

Every point you've argued here has been scientifically incorrect. Why do you continue to trust sources that are always wrong? And why won't you tell us where you are getting this information from?

Wait for it...

 

[Shemjaza]

Well yes, I have several old car batteries that serve a new function- weights for woodworking projects.

The problem is the same; entropy, in this case mutation, degrades the specificity of the information. And this is a one way street-
Entropy will not spontaneously restore an old battery or restore flight to an ostrich.

Similarly a bear may LOSE the ability to produce pigment in it's fur, and yes, this provides a useful 'new' function as camouflage in the arctic.
And this is what we observe and describe as micro-evolution

But again it represents a degradation of original function which is not reversible by the same process; that is why this represents devolution in this context, the bear has lost a genetic function it cannot regain- it's an evolutionary dead-end.

Probability depends on specific examples- but there will always be infinitely more random mutations that will destroy the specificity of information, rather than enhance it.

This appears to be an unsupported idea.

I've never seen an objective method of measurement or a metric for the specificity of information.

Without that it's impossible to make absolute declarations about probability or even increases and decreases.

It's an argument by personal conviction and simple analogy, not science.

But please, if there is a method I'd be very interested to see how it worked.

 

[Shemjaza]

Jaws that derive from gill arches

And so on... I guess the change of a flatworm into a human wasn't evolution, it was just a series of genetic degenerations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This appears to be an unsupported idea.

I've never seen an objective method of measurement or a metric for the specificity of information.

Without that it's impossible to make absolute declarations about probability or even increases and decreases.

It's an argument by personal conviction and simple analogy, not science.

But please, if there is a method I'd be very interested to see how it worked.

Me neither.

Likewise there is no objective measurement to determine whether a person is bald or not.
It's simply a semantic argument that runs 'if I refuse to accept your definition of something, it doesn't exist'

Yet we all know what a bald man is, and we all know that genetic information specifies biological function.
As we all know that degrading digital information makes it less specific, and losing hair makes you more bald! not the opposite.

Similarly; how do we objectively quantify the specificity of information in a page from War & Peace?
We can argue that all day, but no measurement will change the fact, that randomly corrupting the information is infinitely more likely to degrade the specificity than enhance it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And so on... I guess the change of a flatworm into a human wasn't evolution, it was just a series of genetic degenerations.

Exactly, degeneration of genes through random corruption would never evolve a flatworm into a human, the opposite phenomenon is required. Hence the Royal Society's member's recent characterization of Darwinism, that it still lacks a theory of the generative.