The idea was principally Faith's although I'm not sure if she coined the term and I doubt the idea was original with her. Randman occasionally put forward similar ideas and John Davison's prescribed evolutionary hypothesis basically relies on the existence of a super genome as well.
It isn't necessarily a very specific term as it can encompass a number of concepts. The simplest form would be consistent with the idea of what we think of as evolution, or microevolution within kinds for the creationists, as the ongoing degradation of several original created genomes. This original genome would need to be much larger than a modern genome as it would have many redundant sequences which serve to provide much of the genetic diversity we see today in modern species.
So the simplest form would be a super genome which had sufficient genetic material to produce all the geneti diversity we see today.
Davison's formulation was perhaps even stranger. As you may recall he believed in the process of evolution in terms of the descent from possibly several distinct common ancestors for different high order clades, nt low enough to be considered kinds though, but denied that the evolutionary process was still continuing or that it operated in line with the thinking of current evolutionary science. Instead he proposed that evolution was driven by changes in chromosomal organisation occuring during a process he called semi meiosis. The restructuring ocurring during semi meiosis changed the genome so as to allow the expression of previously latent genetic elements and leading to the saltationary emergence of a new species or significant new trait.
Randman's formulation was hard to pin down but seemed to be more concerned with the effect of quantum and internal features relating to DNA driving genetic changes along specific routes, rather than actually requiring a larger genome.
The main feature of all these types of 'super genome' is that they use front loading, of whatever form, to explain the current genetic diversity we see, whether it is from changes within created kinds or from evolution of everything from a common ancestor.
Faith and John Davison's ideas call for a number of genetic factors and effects which are entirely theroretical and which have no evidence to support them as far as I know. It is hard to think of a way to test Randman's formulation since in many ways it is simply a quantum mechanical version of 'god did it' where we cannot discriminate between the stochastic occurrences of mutation from natural causes and specific mutations directed by some mysterious force. Presumably these are the sort of signals which a science of ~ID ought to be able to detect.
Does this clear the idea up a little?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
