From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Microevolution and Macroevolution
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:04:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.081708.24438@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

Onar:  please make your attributions clear:  to whom are you responding
here, etc., etc.

>Someone writes (in response to Onar?)
>>Do you propose that there is a different genetic mechanism underlying
>>macro and microevolution? If yes, what? If no, how do you draw the
>>line between micro and macro?
>
>Yes, I do propose that there is a different mechanism underlying micro- and
>macroevolution.
>
>Microevolution are due to random changes (mutations)in the DNA-sequences. These 
>changes may cause new traits to occur. 

Hmmm...something seems to be missing from this definition.  Perhaps selection?
Perhaps variation through recombination?

The problem, however, is that this is a 
>limited way of change. Ex: No matter how many random changes that occur in a 
>bacteria, the offsprings will not diverge severely from the 'original' bacteria.

Hmmm...there seem to be a couple of problems with this statement:
  (1) the changes in the population are not random.  They are due to selection.
  (2) those changes are exactly what many (dare I say most?) evolutionary
      biologists believe to be the cause of speciation & macroevolution.
 
>(I.e. a random change,yes, even a billion random changes will not make a bacteria
>into a dog.) 

Hmmm...*random* change?  Transmuation from a bacterium to a dog?  Where are you
getting this shit?

>in technical terms we might say that an organism (with N genes) is a
>DYNAMICAL SYSTEM which means that the organism can successfully change BUT within
>certain bondages.

Hmmm...I don't quite see how the use of the (capitalized) words DYNAMICAL
SYSTEM implies "bondages" (limits).  Do you have evidence for such limits?

> In other words, LIMITED change, or change within the DYNAMIC
>RANGE of the system. (provided that the # of genes is constant)

Hmmm...could you tell us how to calculate the (capitalized) DYNAMIC RANGE
of a system?
    ...could you tell us why you assume that the number of genes remains
constant?

>How then CAN a bacteria change into something else? (All living organisms on
>earth evolved from bacterias so they obviously have the ability) This is where we
>turn to macroevolution. Since organisms are dynamical systems with a limited
>dynamic range we have to ALTER the bondages of the system. And, as any genetician
>can verify, these bondages can not be altered with random changes in the
>DNA-sequences.

Hmmm..."Any geneticist" wouldn't waste the time of day with this crap.
"Any geneticist" would look at you funny if you implied that such "bondages"
existed in the first place.

 The only way to alter these bondages is to alter the number of
>genes. And because of the second law of thermodynamics this change must be
>positive (increase in number of genes).

Hmmm...the 2nd law governs the number of genes in a system?  Please, Onar;
explain why?

> A removal of a gene is lethal. (Obs!
>there might be local exceptions). 

Hmmm...those "local exceptions" are pretty useful as a rhetorical hand-waving
tool, aren't they?

[more garbage relying on the bogus existence of "bondages" deleted 
non-lethally]

[even more garbage relying on the bogus necessity of increasing numbers
of genes deleted]

>Another point is that life on earth is tending toward greater featuristic
>complexity (not just greater genetic complexity). Oh never mind. That is to large
>a topic to explain.

Hmmm...

Onar, this post was completely bogus.  From your unsupported assertions
regarding what "any geneticist" will tell us, to your bizzare appeal to
the 2nd law of thermo, to your blatant hand-waving and special pleading,
you sound like you recently graduated from the Loucks-Siivonen School
of Apologia.
>
>Onar.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
Newsgroups: talk.origins