Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?

This is a definition of "macroevolution," not a definition of the "macro level" term that was brought up. Incorrect. Evolution does not have a set direction. Loss of features through mutation and natural selection is an example of evolution.This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-14-2006 11:19 AM

Okay, so referring back to the original quote:

quote:

---

There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution

---

Since you have defined macroevolution as moving beyond the species level, that would indicate that speciation would involve beneficial mutations at the macroevolution level. Genetic changes leading to speciation have been observed in many organisms both in both wild and laboratory popuations. So, I'd say this is falsified. All known forms, yes. Show us how it is dishonest. Precisely - extra genetic information would need to be gained along the way. By extra "genetic information," I mean new genes and new alleles. This kind of addition is commonly observable, as others have pointed out. Of course not. I'm saying that extra genetic information was gained along the way. That's an aspect of evolution, but not its totality. A loss of genetic information, promoted through a population by natural selection, is also evolution.

The problem may be that you're not familiar with the terminology. Let's review your quote from wikipedia:

quote:

---

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (generally described as changes in genotype frequencies) in populations.

---

In biology, "population" referrs to a group of organisms of a given species. Speciation is the origin of a new species. To continue from your own wikipedia source:

quote:

---

Thus the process of speciation is the link between macroevolution and microevolution, and it can fall within the perview of either.

---

You see, among biologists the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is essential one of scale, rather than function or mechanism.This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-14-2006 12:24 PM

Semantics are important when a key concept under discussion remains poorly defined.I'm not a geneticist either, and I hope one of the molecular folks will jump in here. Mechanisms for new genes (such as duplication followed by divergence) were referred to in Message 8 and Message 21. The best I can do offhand is refer you to these examples (if you don't like TO, you are welcome to look up the cited references): CB101.2: Mutations and new features.

But randman, the randomness of mutation isn't an especially important concept in evolution. We're not holding it up as any sort of evidence for or against evolution. If it does not meet the criteria of a given definition of randomness, what does that mean? Not much, except that mutation isn't random. Not particularly exciting or revolutionary.

So that's the definition you're using? That random means "unguided?"Well that settles the definition issue. If we can gain any evidence that it is guided, we can work from there. So far, we don't have any.This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-17-2006 07:01 PM

"Hostile towards ID" is not a scientific position, it is a personal one. The reason that most of us are opposed to teaching ID as science is that there is no evidence for it nor any way of falsifying it, and thus it does not qualify as a scientific theory.

I begin to fear the wrath of the admins - there are countless ways that many aspects of the TofE could be falsified, but haven't been. But I think it should go into its own thread, and I don't have the time to devote to it tonight. If you would like to start one, I will join in as time permits.

Precisely! And this is exactly why I still hold that theistic evolution is a reasonable position for those who wish to reconcile their religious devotion with the scientific evidence....even though I am not such a person.

There is much in Scripture that suggests the Abrahamic God is certainly capable of cruelty and indifference on earth. However, it's not a topic for the Science forums.