Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge

What do you consider a "statistically significant amount of genetic information"?

quote:

---

let me [Durston] propose the following definitions, which I will continue to use:

Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.

Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.

Both statistical significance and functional information are already defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on, avoiding the two mistakes discussed above.

---

Edited by CRR, : Link added

CRR writes: Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.

This is just a bunch of weasel words. If a mutation causes a new allele to be added to the gene pool of a population, then that is an increase in information. If via selection an allele disappears from the gene pool of a population, then that is a decrease in information.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : "a mutation" => "an allele" in last sentence.

Remind me, how do you explain that every human/chimp chromosome has genes that are non-homologous between humans and chimps?

I would be interested to know what you consider the presence of non-homologous genes infers. You seem to be suggesting that these represent ‘statistically significant increase in functional information’ and therefore represent macroevolution. However, of the genes you listed in Message 167, all have homologues in the Orangutan and most are also found in the Gorilla and even the Macaque. This leaves the Chimpanzee as a seeming outlier based on your criteria, so what does this indicate for how you view primate evolution?

CRR writes: Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information. Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.

If the differences between the human and chimp genomes do not constitute a "statistically significant increase in functional information", then those definitions are meaningless since evolution would not need to produce this increase.

If the differences between the human and chimp genomes do constitute an increase, then you need to show how the known and natural processes of mutagenesis could not produce those differences.

Your choice.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

However, of the genes you listed in Message 167, all have homologues in the Orangutan and most are also found in the Gorilla and even the Macaque.

This is an interesting question.
If humans have a gene that has no homologue in chimps but has homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque what is the best explanation?
Did this gene evolve independently in 4 species but not in the other; or is it a gene that comes from a common ancestor and was lost in the chimp species?

Similarly there are genes in the chimp that have no homologue in humans but does have homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque. How would you explain this?
It seems that you find many genes that appear to be shared across several species but are missing from some. What does this indicate for how you view primate evolution?

CRR writes: Did this gene evolve independently in 4 species but not in the other; or is it a gene that comes from a common ancestor and was lost in the chimp species?

The latter.

Similarly there are genes in the chimp that have no homologue in humans but does have homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque. How would you explain this?

Same way.

It seems that you find many genes that appear to be shared across several species but are missing from some. What does this indicate for how you view primate evolution?

Primate evolution is an unremarkable example of evolution in action.

--Percy

CRR writes: If humans have a gene that has no homologue in chimps but has homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque what is the best explanation?

Gene loss in the chimp lineage.

Similarly there are genes in the chimp that have no homologue in humans but does have homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque. How would you explain this?

Gene loss in the human lineage.

It seems that you find many genes that appear to be shared across several species but are missing from some. What does this indicate for how you view primate evolution?

If the gene loss/gains follow a phylogenetic pattern, it points to common ancestry. A common designer could remove and add genes in almost any pattern, but evolution can only produce one pattern, and that pattern is a phylogeny. For example, a common designer could add gene BBB to gorillas, humans, and macaques, but no other primate species. However, we don't see that pattern. We see that gene gains and losses follow a branching structure as we would expect from evolution and common ancestry.

If humans have a gene that has no homologue in chimps but has homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque what is the best explanation?
Did this gene evolve independently in 4 species but not in the other; or is it a gene that comes from a common ancestor and was lost in the chimp species?

Percy writes: The latter.

Taq writes: Gene loss in the chimp lineage.

Similarly there are genes in the chimp that have no homologue in humans but does have homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque. How would you explain this?

Percy writes: Same way.

Taq writes: Gene loss in the human lineage.

So the hypothetical common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had a few hundred more genes that either humans or chimps.

The hypothetical common ancestor of humans, chimps, Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque must have had several hundred more genes than any of its descendants.

So this would be clear evidence of devolution. Creationists have been saying for some time that devolution, rather than evolution, is what we observe in nature. Darwin got it backwards.

Taq writes: If the differences between the human and chimp genomes do not constitute a "statistically significant increase in functional information", ...

The differences between the human and chimp genomes constitute a "statistically significant difference in functional information".

Since you and Percy have agreed that both humans and chimps have lost a large number of genes since the hypothetical common ancestor you should be arguing that this constitutes a "statistically significant loss in functional information".

Since this requires no statistically significant increase in functional information it would be microevolution.

So, humans and chimps and orangutangs and gorillas are all the same "kind", then?

So the hypothetical common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had a few hundred more genes that either humans or chimps. The hypothetical common ancestor of humans, chimps, Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque must have had several hundred more genes than any of its descendants.

I'm sure Taq can answer this better than I, but "gene loss" does not mean "gene disappearance".

Since you and Percy have agreed that both humans and chimps have lost a large number of genes since the hypothetical common ancestor you should be arguing that this constitutes a "statistically significant loss in functional information".

And yet both chimps and humans are statistically significant functional organisms with all the same basic functionality.

Doesn't that argue that either

• "statistically significant functional information" is irrelevant to evolutionary processes and the functionality of evolved organisms,

  or

• any information that was lost has been replaced/increased by new genes that provide the same basic "statistically significant functional information"

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

CRR writes: So the hypothetical common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had a few hundred more genes that either humans or chimps.

That's how you've decided to measure amount of information in a genome? By counting the genes? The more genes the more information? Probably not valid.

Anyway, you've made the error of paying attention to only one side of ledger, namely losing genes. Humans and chips have also acquired genes. Here's a chart that provides some gains and losses in number of genes:

So the hypothetical common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had a few hundred more genes that either humans or chimps.

The chart says the opposite, that the common ancestor had fewer genes.

So this would be clear evidence of devolution.

More genes doesn't mean better. The amoeba genome is a hundred times larger than the human genome, though I don't know how many genes it has. And the water flea Daphnia has 31,000 genes, exceeding the human count of 19,000 by quite a bit. And does the Daphnia genome contain more information than the human genome? At the rate you're figuring out how to measure information, you'll never be able to answer that question.

Creationists have been saying for some time that devolution, rather than evolution, is what we observe in nature.

What we observe in nature is the process of evolution, which includes gaining and losing chromosomes, genes and alleles. The term "devolution" has no defined meaning within biology.

--Percy

CRR writes: The differences between the human and chimp genomes constitute a "statistically significant difference in functional information".

Then all evolution needs to produce is a difference in order to produce macroevolution. It doesn't need to produce an increase as you define it.

Since you and Percy have agreed that both humans and chimps have lost a large number of genes since the hypothetical common ancestor you should be arguing that this constitutes a "statistically significant loss in functional information".

Where did we say that there was a loss of a large number? You are putting words in our mouth.

Also, you are focusing just on the losses. You are ignoring all of the other changes in each genome.

Since this requires no statistically significant increase in functional information it would be microevolution.

Humans evolving from an ape-like ancestor is microevolution?

We could also compare the human genome with the lamprey genome. We will also see that there has been loss in both the human and lamprey lineages that lead away from that common ancestor. Does this mean that humans evolving from a fish-like ancestor is microevolution?

CRR writes: So the hypothetical common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had a few hundred more genes that either humans or chimps. The hypothetical common ancestor of humans, chimps, Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque must have had several hundred more genes than any of its descendants.

All of those species would also have lineage specific genes not found in the common ancestor. You are forgetting those. Every lineage is going to have a combination of gene gain and gene loss. It's called evolution.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.