"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

YE is as dead an intellectually viable concept as the geocentric earth was; in fact the information refuting YE is more accessible than that refuting the central earth system.The next ideological brick to fall will be the false distinction between "macro" and "micro" as the evidence mounts that there is no distinction at either the genetic or the full-scale biological level.I don't think this will bring "christianity" to its (collective) knees as the teachings of christ are a viable ideology for a faith. What there will be is more of a distinction between the OT and the NT and reliance on jesus as a messenger of change and rebirth.What it may do is allow christians to open to science in a way that has not always been possible.Personally I don't think god plays favorites.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The "mechanism" as I have always heard it is, essentially, the concept of "it will become too degraded to function."There are bunch of lemmas that circle this concept. For example, the "no new information" concept. A mouse and an elephant have different numbers of chromosomes and, according to them, there is no way to add a new chromosome.This is generally buttressed by an inability to let 1 + 1 = 2. That is, assuming they don't outright deny the ability to have a new gene show up, they refuse to allow the addition of a gene followed by the alteration of that copy.If we assume that the genes are laid out abcdefg, then to have aabcdefg isn't "new information" because all we have done is copy what already existing, it isn't "new." But if we then alter than copy so that we have zabcdefg, that isn't "new" either because the length of the genetic string is identical to what we had before.In short, they have no memory. They only seem to remember what happened one step previous, not what we started with five or six steps ago. Yes, zabcdefg is the same length as aabcdefg, but we didn't originally start with aabcdefg. We started with abcdefg. And from that starting point, using methods that they accept as allowable, we have come up with something that has an additional, unique gene. Therefore, by any reasonable definition of "new," we have "added new information."But to counter this, they bring up the old saw of "no beneficial mutations." Ignoring the fact that most mutations are actually neutral, they latch onto the fact that most mutations that have obvious, visual effect are deleterious. Thus, they claim that if there is all this mutation going on inside, eventually these bad mutations will accumulate and cause unviability of the organism.This ignores selection. Yes, there are bad mutations, but those mutations are selected against. They happen, but they do not accumulate. Instead, the neutral and beneficial mutations collect, the ones that allow the organism to survive and thrive. And over time, we find that the species has changed with new information.Thus, their conclusion is that an organism can change, a little, but any large-scale changes cause inviability in the organism.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hey RAZD,A good question; my first thought: a possible mechanism would utilize a "kind"-specific subset of absolutely mutation-proof genes, perhaps involved in reproduction. These genes would represent the signature for each "kind" and thus define each kind.Potentially a designer could have designed most sequences to be mutable to allow micro-evolution, but the "kind" signature genes to be forever protected, preventing macro-evolution. Perhaps these genes would be "mutation-proof" because any single base change in their sequence would make the organism sterile or dead.Of course, there are no "mutation-proof" genes that I know of, so this is all for shits and giggles...

of the usual arguments. your zabcdefg example is right on.

Nice concept, and about the only thing I can see that would hold water, albeit badly. Of course not all creationist arguments need to hold water to have a following (as has been amply demonstrated).Testable too -- all one needs to do is find a section of DNA that is immune to mutation.heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

stop using Christian and Creationist as though they were synonymous. It comes up time aftertime in thread after thread.Most Christians have no problems with Evolution, Micro, Macro or anywhere inbetween. Those of us here who are Christian and also support the TOE have as hard a time understanding the mind or thought of the Literalists as you folk do. From Atheism to Zoology, those folk are in a little world of their own.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i don't see how.and us in the center of creation? isn't pride one of big sins christianity likes to rant against?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-05-2004 07:17 PM

different organisms have different numbers of chromosomes, all made from the same basic DNA blocks ... how many chromosomes did LUCA have? 1? It seems logical to me.Perhaps a model for deep evolution would involve chromosome development the same way it looks at mutations?Certainly {biology \ evolution \ genetics} needs to show how new chromosomes evolve?Perhaps this is the {macro \ micro} divide?{{edited to change "gene" to "chromosome"}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 07-05-2004 07:37 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

i agree totally, as a christian "evolutionist"how many of us are there here, out of curiosity?

um, don't think I was. I usually try to delineate those differences. I may have seemed careless in msg #16 but did mean christians there as an all inclusive: the preponderance of christians that have no problems with old earth and "macro" evolution obviously demonstrate my point that faith will survive when those facts are accepted. I do try to use "biblical literalist" or similar to distinguish creationist types too.If I do overstep, apologies tendered.

Would you restate this... particularly "gene development the same way it looks at mutations"?I'm not sure what you are getting at, since much work has gone into "how new genes evolve".

oops - I meant chromosomes, I'll have to edit it.can {seperation \ duplication-modification \ addition \ deletion} of chromosomes be used to track "macro" levels of evolution the way mutations within gene sequences is used?can one develop a chromosome family tree?

No offense taken. Well, no major offense taken. Well, actually, it's Christian to forgive. But I do have to note that this thread, along with so many others dealing with specific parts and mechanisims does appear to be, as is so often the case, the same group of folk talking amongst ourselves.I've often wondered if we should not get together and start our own Creationist site. I have to believe that we could do a far better job than any of the Creationists to date. It would, of course, mean totally sacrificing honesty and morality, but I understand that Dr. Scott takes in something over 1 Million dollars a month.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

an unscrupulous demon on my shoulder has whispered similar suggestions ... but she still seems a little too "made up" for me

[whisper mode on]One Million Dollars a Month. One Million Dollars a Month.[ /whisper mode off] But how about just for the fun of it. We'd need a foul mouthed curmudgeon, a reasonable professorial type, an enthusiatic evangelizer, a sex interest female (remember we only need to do better than Jim Bakker did or we can pick a lumberjack. Who's to know?) and of course, the chorus.Who could fill such positions of weight, might and authority?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion