[edsheppa]

The information you gave describes Micro Evolution well. But not Macro Evolution.

Wait a minute. You say here the process I described is an example of microev. But that process was one where you start with a "primitive" genome and end up with one that expresses a brain. And this is the example you claimed was an instance of macroev according to your meaning. That seems contradictory. What gives?

Correct. However, if you end up with an output greater then the input...

I'll attempt to not repeat myself again but just say this: I don't see any case where the output is necessarily greater than the input. Specifically, assuming that the genome is essentially determinative and that a sequence of natural (and usually small) changes can take long ago genomes to today's then the output has no more information than the input (i.e. initial condition plus changes). I agree that if a contrary case could be shown then it would require a new approach.

[Hajman]

Wait a minute. You say here the process I described is an example of microev. But that process was one where you start with a "primitive" genome and end up with one that expresses a brain. And this is the example you claimed was an instance of macroev according to your meaning. That seems contradictory. What gives?

I may have missunderstood your point. The process I said described Micro Evolution is begining with some information, and making small changes in it. I then pointed out that the brain, compared to the bacteria, assumes Macro Evolution (so therefore, your process, at least as far as I understood it, wouldn't be able to be applied to long term effects, such as from the bacteria to the human).

I'll attempt to not repeat myself again but just say this: I don't see any case where the output is necessarily greater than the input. Specifically, assuming that the genome is essentially determinative and that a sequence of natural (and usually small) changes can take long ago genomes to today's then the output has no more information than the input (i.e. initial condition plus changes). I agree that if a contrary case could be shown then it would require a new approach.

Actually, the problem I see is this: Mathematical premise - A function that runs under A<=B can never shift into A>B without a conversion. So two possibilities exist. 1) The function needs to be one that doesn't follow the A<=B. However, all evolutionary algorithms I've seen do follow this (GAs, for instance, and all observed evolutionary changes have taken place within A<=B). Thus, if it's a function that goes beyond A<=B, then you need to show me this. Or 2) The function is a A<=B, but there's a conversion factor that allows it to shift to a A>B function. If that's the case, then again, you need to show me this. Either way, you need to explain how this works. The burden of proof is on you. Bacteria to brain is an increase in function/information, and requires a A>B function. If you claim it uses a A<=B function with many iterations, you're making a claim that runs contrary to any math rules I've ever seen.

Another thing you might consider is this: The evolution doesn't run along a single line of change...it's more like a 2 dimensional (or more, I figure) line of change. The increased complexity of apparent functionality from existing structure/information (found in AL programs) slides along the horizontal scale (Micro Evolution). However, a change such as a bacteria to a human (brain) slides along the vertical scale (Macro Evolution). A function that runs along the horizontal scale (A<=B) will never move into the vertical scale, unless it's not a A<=B function, or if it has a conversion function of some type. Either way, the burden of proof is on you, since observations only show a A<=B function for evolution.

-The Hajman-