Macro and Micro evolution for dummies.

[Kirbmarc]

Actually that statement is somewhat controversial. Google "evolution unit of selection" and learn something. Here's one place to start:

I was already aware of this controversy, thank you. I just phrased my sentence badly. I should have simply talked about "natural selection" (which isn't controversial) in general as being an analogy, when indeed there is no "selector" but only individuals who either have offrsprings (passing on their genes) or not.

The controversy about the unit of selection doesn't change the fact that the term "selection" is an analogy and shouldn't be taken literally.

And there was no one who argued either of those positions, so what's your point?

You did, when you talked about "loss" or "addition" or information (as if someone added or removed information at will). Mutations can't cause "loss" or "addition" of information. The only causes a change in the genotype that produces a different phenotype. Whether that pheontype is an advantage or not depends on the environment, not on the phenotype itself.


Therefore talking about dogs as wolves who have "lost information" is nonsense. There are no losses or gains or information, only changes in phenotypes that can lead to the production of offrsprings or not according to how they benefit the individual in a particular environment.

[John V]

And there was no one who argued either of those positions, so what's your point?

You did, when you talked about "loss" or "addition" or information (as if someone added or removed information at will).

No, you read it into what I said, as your parenthetical above indicates.

Mutations can't cause "loss" or "addition" of information.

Bacteria don't have the genetic information to produce a backbone, arms and legs. Evolution assumes that mutations can indeed create such new information. Information can be lost by damaging mutations, or by selection, whether natural or artificial.

Therefore talking about dogs as wolves who have "lost information" is nonsense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12692167

Dog breeds were created by man choosing for select phenotypic traits such as size, shape, coat color, conformation, and behavior. Rigorous phenotypic selection likely resulted in a loss of genetic information. [Empahsis added]

[Kirbmarc]

Bacteria don't have the genetic information to produce a backbone, arms and legs.

Correction. Bacteria don't have genes that produce proteines that create a backbone, arms or legs. You can call that " genetic information" if you want (many do. I think that the term is misleading), but those genes were acquired merely by a (long) process of mutations and selections. Not by artificial additions of "information".

Evolution assumes that mutations can indeed create such new information. Information can be lost by damaging mutations, or by selection, whether natural or artificial.

Evolution assumes that mutations and selection create and trasmit new genes. Whther mutations are damaging or not depends on the environment, not on the mutations themselves. For example, alpha-thalassemia may be considered a damage or an adantage according to the environment: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1435778/

Mutations can be either "loss" or "gain" of "information" according to the environment. Trying to argue that there is qualitative difference between macro and micro evolutionin terms of "gain" or "loss" is misleasding.

The terms "macro" and "micro" evolution are misleading, too. "macro" changes are simply the result of series of "micro" changes. There is plenty of foossil evidence for this claim, see for example here:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html.

Rigorous phenotypic selection likely resulted in a loss of genetic information

Again, you presented me with another example of the analogical use of the terms information. What the paper argues is the loss of genetic variety within the species because dogs were selected according to specific traits, while wolves communities maintained a higher variety of phenoypes.

[popeyespappy]

What's the point of your argument John? Are you wanting to say that evolution has no mechanism for creating new features such as backbones, arms and legs?