From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 12 Oct 1992 13:48:43 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

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

>Microevolution are due to random changes (mutations)in the DNA-sequences. 
>These changes may cause new traits to occur. 

And what about selection?  It is the combination of variation (mutations) 
and selection that drives evolution.

>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. (I.e. a random change,yes, even a billion random changes will 
>not make a bacteria into a dog.) 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. In other 
>words, LIMITED change, or change within the DYNAMIC
>RANGE of the system. (provided that the # of genes is constant)

Just to make everything clear, no one (except the erectors of straw-men)
claims that bacteria can turn into dogs through a billion jugglings of
their DNA.  Ignoring for a moment that we must properly deal with populations
contaning distributions of gene frequencies (a BIG ignoring).  The 
argument runs like this:
   1.  a few (maybe even one) mutations separate an "almost dog" from a dog,
   2.  a few (maybe even one) mutations separate an "almost almost dog"
        from an "almost dog"
*** several steps deleted ****
   X.  a few (maybe even one) mutations separate "almost therapsid reptile A"
        from therapsid reptile A.
*** several steps deleted ****
   Y.  a few (maybe even one) mutations separate "almost original life form"
        from "original life form".

Note that each step is small and well within the constraints of your proposed
"bondages."  However, while on the subject, please provide some evidence
that such bounds exist and in what manner they are implemented.

>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. 

How nice! Then it should be very easy for you to provide references showing
that these bounds exist, how they were discovered, why they cannot be
altered by mutation, etc.

>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). 

Please explain how the second law of thermodynamics requires the number
of genes to increase.

>>They've manipulated the meaning of the terms to suit their interests by
>> describing an alleged barrier on variation that prevents speciation;
>>what this barrier is, they won't explain. 
>>cheers mike
>
>These last questions have answered themselves based on my previous reasoning.

I didn't see any reasoning at all, just the unsubstatiated claim that
such barriers ("bondages") exist and that "any geneticist" will agree.
Therefore, I again request that you provide a respectable reference
for such a claim.

--
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: talk.origins