Sometimes even without environmental change. In botany (204, IIRC) we looked at a plant that today has a roughly square stem (the faces are slightly concave) that descends from a forebear which had a flat stem (with slightly convex faces). In addition, the leaves went from simple units to multiply bifurcated, so that the plants today look nothing like their ancestors. As I recall there were just two mutations that accomplished this by changing how two proteins got folded, one in the stem that turned two faces into four and flipped the cross section of the faces, and another that caused the leaves to have multiple divisions instead of being unified.
Yet underlying this was another change: the ancestral plants had had fewer chromosomes than their eventual offspring; somewhere along the line a division had resulted in a large number of the chromosomes ending up with two copies in a seed rather than just one – and the mutations that changed the shape occurred on duplicated chromosomes.
The fascinating thing is that this change occurred during the last two centuries, and the original version is still around, which means that (a) this is an observation of an increase in information and that (b) offspring in just a few generations (no way to know how many, but not many) can appear completely different than their parents. The two are known by field observation, laboratory examination, and genetic analysis to be something like 99.9% genetically identical, yet they cannot interbreed – and thus we have the emergence of a new species in historical times.
I just wish I could remember the species involved! Yet it’s no more surprising than the fact that new species of plants were found around bomb craters in England after WWII, really.
= - = - = - = - = - = - =
Seriously? When I was student teaching back in the early 90s an incoming 7th-grader was expected to be able to answer that. If nothing else, it happens when chromosomes don’t get distributed properly and you get a germ cell that has extra copies of some. I know of this in plants; there are triploid, quattroploid, pentaploid, hexaploid, and octoploid plants we looked at in botany classes. It’s simple, then: a mutation on one of the additional chromosomes can and will have mutations that the other doesn’t get, and that change can result in information being added to the genetic set.
I’ll leave description of more subtle mechanisms to those who actually majored in biology.
If it was two hundred years ago, then there is a decent chance offspring a year occurred. Thst would be 200 generations. Not to mention that there could be dozens or more off springs each time. All these plants also would be having their own changes. So plant A and plant B may each have their own changes, so plant AB has both and plant AB and CD offspring would be even more different.
The ID/Creationist definition of Complex Specified Information (CSI) is a constantly moving goal post. They are never able to measure CSI in any meaningful way with actual sequence data. For example, they are never able to compare the human and chimp genome and show which differences constitute an increase in CSI.
At the end of the day, we really have to ask if evolution even needs to produce an increase in CSI (as not defined by ID/creationists) in order to produce all of the biodiversity we see today.
The problem with “specified” information is that, when talking about evolution, it is specifying after the fact. In other words, the arrow has hit the side of the barn and you paint a target around it.
Heritable information is necessary for evolution. Molecules carry information and can be inherited. Information increases all the time because stuff happens all the time. For example, vyevfdub is new information. “I just typed vyevfdub by closing my eyes and hitting the keyboard.” Not very interesting or useful information in most situations, but it’s information. Every mutation, every recombination is new information. Most of them just tell us “a slight variation in DNA makes an organism pretty much like its relatives”, but occasionally one tells us “this DNA combination doesn’t work” or “this DNA combination makes an organism noticeably different from its relatives”.
Complexity is problematic. Genetic information is a bunch of A, C, G, and T - seems pretty simple when put that way. Other ways of describing make ti seem more complex. How do you determine what’s the best assessment of complexity?
this O.P ignores some significant problems in Plant Polyploidy…
Generally only two or three individuals provide the foundation for this, and as a result, poor genetic variability occurs. It is thought that this is a major reason why many instances of this change result in rapid extinction of the species of plants!
Next, the supposed new species are generally almost identical to their parents and so that presents problems determining taxonomy!
Another problem is that the data we have suggests that the majority of cases of Polyploidy in plants is a result of reproductive error! That suggests copy stuffups which is supportive of the literal biblical model that all creation was corrupted by the introduction of sin as outlined in quite a number of passages throughout the bible!
Mayr is quoted as saying…
"“Polyploids pose a difficult taxonomic problem. An autopolyploid [defined below] may be virtually indistinguishable, at the time of origin, from the parental diploid. Such a form is often referred to as a ‘polyploid race.’ . . . Yet such a ‘race’ is reproductively isolated from the parental species and is, biologically speaking, a good species.” Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution .
The next issue, the idea that Polyploidy produces plants that are often invasive to their surronding habitat! To me that is hardly advantageous…its more supportive of the biblical model of corruption as a result of the introduction of sin and how that is devastating for harmony on the earth and its environment…even amongst plantlife!
In all of this i have to question whether evolution aims to move forward in its goals (if you like) or backwards? I think the notion here is more supportive of the corruption model set out in the Bible.
