Macroevolution: Its all around us...

another "too sense" on this one: the big problem for creationists and idists (and anyone else unclear on the concept) that make this argument are instances where an organism has evolved back and forth several times.from: NATURE.com - Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects (click): also see this (pdf file) chart
http://www.nature.com/...421/n6920/extref/nature01313-s1.pdfFor instance Lopaphus parakensislost wings from an ancestor that had gained wings from an ancestor that lost wings from an ancestor that had been winged.so tell me, if every mutation is a loss in information, which one lost information and what is the information that was lost?and this is only one example of this kind of thing.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

or an eventual resultTHE CAT ATE ON THE MEAT

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thanks, but I collected it here from another poster. I like it because, well, because I like walking stick insects I also kept it for just the reason cited here. I want to see how "mutation is just loss of information" can handle this situation.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thus according to you every time wings are lost of deformed or partially formed information is lost.you get a "bye" on the first loss of wings event so that you have a base point to argue from: species {A} with wings mutated and lost information and became species {B} without wings.(Note that the first insects were not winged, so the development of wings would have to originally been a loss of information before the phasmids became speciated from their ancestor insects. I give you a "bye" on that event too, seeing as it occured before phasmids existed) For. You may be confused about what evolution is and isn't. Evolution is change in species over time, and these phasmids demonstrate change and change and change. That some changes reverse the direction of previous changes is not a concern to evolution, because the conditions that select the {changes} has also *changed* -- however this is a side issue to your claim that all mutations result in a loss in information. please stay on topic. The chart is designed to show the change in species over time, based on the genetic information, it does this very well, and has no need to demonstrate what "needs to happen" -- only what did happen. Again, this is a side issue: please stay on topic. Your claim is that every mutation is always a loss of information, and this is not related to the necessity of whole genes being lost, but to each individual mutation event. Please do not conflate one argument with another and stay on topic. Seeing as this involves species wide genetics rather than individuals the issue of {dominant\regressive} genes is another side issue not related to the topic: please stay on topic. The topic is your claim that every mutation is a loss of information. Again we are not talking about genes but mutations. Mutations that result, according to you, only in the loss of information.Let me spell it out for you, seeing as you seem to be unclear on the concept:(1) species {A} with wings mutated and lost information and became species {B} without wings (remember this from above?)(2) species {B} without wings mutated and lost information and became species {C} with wings.How can it come "back out" without regaining the information on how to get it "back out" -- the information was "lost" according to your original concept and your concept rejects any gain in information, including the regaining of lost information in any way shape or form. And to make matters worse it doesn't stop there in the case specifically extracted from the total set:(3) species {C} with wings mutated and lost information and became species {D}, Lopaphus parakensis, without wings.Please explain how species {D} has less information than species {B} while at the same time species {C} has less information than species {A}, then please explain how species {C} has less information than species {B} when species {B} lost information from species {A}; repeat for species {D} relative to B} ... and {C} ... and {A}.Keep the discussion to specific mutation event loss of information. Again this is off topic. It is irrelevant what the result of the mutation is if every mutation results in a loss in information (it is also wrong: I have seen walking sticks fly (and due to the limitations on my observations within the time frame, these would have to be current species that currently fly )). Please stick to the topic (or start another one on the value of "extra" body parts). When in doubt invoke the god of the gaps argument, especially after conflating one argument with another to hide the fact that you are equivocating on your original position. Please stay on topic.Let me reiterate: your position is that every mutation is a loss in information. This does not have anything to do with the gain or loss of whole genes, so conflating those is equivocating on your first position.You have utterly failed to show how loss of information in every mutation can explain this situation. I bet it went with him where-ever he went ... but seriously, anecdotal 'evidence' is of limited value: I had a friend with six toes and she could move all of them independently. I also know of a person with 4 toes. Does this mean that both 6 and 4 are a loss of information from the 'normal' value of 5? .... but again, let's please stick to the topic at hand and the specific scientifically substantiated evidence of the phasmids, and not conflate the argument with unsubstantiated personal anecdotes.Examples of loss of information in {a\some} instances does not validate the claim that mutation is always a loss of information and thus is irrelvant to the topic: please stay on topic. NOTE - failure to address this issue specifically with regard to mutational loss of information at every step from {A} to {B} to {C} to {D} means that you cannot honestly continue to claim that mutation is always a loss of informationEnjoy.

I prefer the much simpler fact that his argument is refuted unless and until he can actually show a loss of information at each stage rather than just make a bald claim.JonF's point is similar in this approach.

thanks mick!I agree that it is just speciation, but I also note that if we parse the mechanism to it's most parsimonious minimum, all we have in evolution is speciation evolution: an accumulation of {physical\behavioral} changes sufficient to prevent previously related populations from interbreeding.In this regard the DNA evidence is the same: changes upon changes accumulating over time.Any attempt to create larger classes is just a result of subjective analysis due to apparent magnetudes of differences.In this I have been converted.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

have you seen the work by Jim Marden on the evolution of flight in stoneflies?http://www.rps.psu.edu/jun95/marden.html

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I would think that a very thick {undergrowth\'jungle'} environement would select against flight as a waste of developmental energy when you can't fly further than you can walk, but that more open environments would select otherwise.and it would be logical for some environments to evolve back and forth depending on climate changesmy "tutu sense" worth of the dance ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

one big advantage to being wingless is you are not limited in size.but then the "Goliath Walkingstick" Phasma gigas flies (well the male does, the female doesn't).Page not found - Bugs In Cyberspacethis stick is about 7" long.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

yeah, that ties in with "select against flight as a waste of developmental energy" in a previous message. and that is what makes sexual selection significant in it's own right, as this need can trump mere survival if there are no mates left.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}