From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Clarification on Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 13 Oct 1992 16:59:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: dirac.phys.ksu.edu

In article <1992Oct13.114147.5056@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

[lots of stuff about dynamical systems being limited deleted]

>Lets make a thought experiment: YOU are the ultimate genetician and you 
>are given an ultimate task. You are given a DNA sequence with a range of 
>say 100,000 nucleids which is not too uncommon in bacterias. You are 
>allowed to arrange this genome ANY way you like. See what species you can 
>come up with. (obs!limited time)
>Now, you will probably have come up with an extremeley large number of species,
>but you notice, however, that they do not differ extremely much from 
>each other.

This is a bald-faced assertion.  Do you have any evidence that this is the
case?  I could just as easily claim the diametrical opposite: that there
will be species which differ extremely from each other.  And we would each
have the same amount of evidence to back up our respective claims (i.e. none).

>(You will for instance not have been able to make a dog). THIS (the total
>number of species which is possible to make within the given limit) is the
>theoretical dynamic range of the system. Of course, in nature the range 
>is a lot
>more narrow (but still very large) since there are combinations that
>naturally will never occur. Have I made myself clear? Hope so.

What you are saying seems to boil down to the fact that there are a 
limited number of combinations of genes for a limited number of genes.
If that is your point, then it is certainly correct.  And if that is
the extent of your "bondages" on variation, then that is probably
acceptable.  However, you make much more extreme claims above (that
of all the combinations of genes, none will give rise to a significantly
different organism) which you have not substantiated.

[more deleted]
The part deleted seems to be making the point that if you increase
the number of genes, then the space of possible gene combinations 
(and therefore the space of possible organisms) increases as well.
Which, put that way, seems perfectly reasonable.


>I will pick up again something that Justin M. Sanders wrote:
[my description of the step-by-step evolution of a dog from the
 ancestral life form, deleted]
>>Note that each step is small and well within the constraints of your proposed
>>"bondages."  
>
>What you are suggesting is that any major evolutionary change is due to 
>the sum of many small changes. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Each step might be 
>within the bondages (read dynamic range) but they do not alter these 
>bondages. To come from original life to a dog you have to expand the 
>original bondages. This, by defenition, can only occur by an increase 
>in the number of genes. 

I was suggesting that evolutionary change is the accumulation (under 
selection) of changes (usually one or a few at a time).  Whether those
changes are point mutations or gene doubling, was not my concern.  I
don't see why it is necessary to make the distinction that you do between
the changes.

>Mr. Sanders view, if I understood him right, is way back in gradualism 
>which is dead, gameover, finito.
  "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

I think this is Andy Peters (sorry if it's not!):
>>What Mr Aam appears to have done here is to recognize the 
>>difficulty with the usual claim of Creationists that there 
>>are 'limits" to evolution.  As we know, whenever they are
>>asked to show evidence of such limits, or to explain how
>>they are implemented, they back off and fall silent.
>
>A suggestion for all of you who find my explanations on dynamic systems
>insufficient: use a year or two of your life to study Nonlinear-,
>Chaotic-,Complex- and Dynamical systems. Then come back and discuss 
>with me.

The onus is on the one explaining to explain in such a fashion that
his readers can understand.  Telling us to go away until we are
smart enough to talk to you is likely to be counterproductive and
doesn't improve communication.
--
Justin M. Sanders    "The science of mathematics has no more 
Dept. of Physics       bowels of mercy than has a cast-iron dog." 
Kansas State Univ.      --Rep. John A. Anderson of Kansas, 1882
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus