Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?

Coming in a bit late here.Mutations can increase genetic diversity without increasing information.
E.g. If there is a point substitution such that the codon produces the same amino acid there would be a new allele but no change in produced protein or in the phenotype. It could even change the amino acid without changing the function of the protein.A mutation can also change a function without it increasing information, such as in the sickle cell trait. This produces defective red blood cells but also provides some protection against malaria. A defect in the MC1R gene results in red hair.The original kinds from the ark could have had up to 4 alleles for each gene, more for the clean kinds. Mutations could have increased alleles and diversity without increasing information.

Correct! Each created kind had the necessary genetic diversity to produce a number of descendants by partitioning and/or loss of genetic information.

I agree, Faith is welcome to "butt in" if he has a relevant comment.

As I have argued elsewhere diversity alone does not require "macroevolution". Sickle cell trait has added to diversity of blood types but it is clearly a defect. One copy is detrimental although it can provide a nett benefit in some circumstances, two copies is always detrimental.Using the analogy of a light switch. A functioning on/off switch is the archetype. Broken always on and broken always off add diversity but not function. An on/off switch that transformed into a dimmer switch would be much more interesting but would still be a lightswitch.Dog breeding provides a good example of increasing diversity within a kind. Different breeds are developed and maintained by eliminating undesired traits. Allow dogs to freely breed and there would be regression toward the mean to produce a range of mongrels. (btw, I'm a European Mongrel). Mutations can produce new traits that are sometimes valued and selected by breeders but the product is still a dog. ' "Small population size during domestication and strong artificial selection for breed-defining traits has unintentionally increased the numbers of deleterious genetic variants," the researchers write.' So clearly RAZD's question can be answered in the negative.

As my reply to RAZD shows mutations that increase diversity are not necessarily rare, but many of them are detrimental and even the beneficial ones are usually defects of some sort. What IS rare are the beneficial information adding mutations, Macroevolution, that would be essential for the proposed evolutionary history of life.Evolution apologists need to show that sufficient macroevolution can take place during the time available to produce the changes required. For this purpose no amount of examples of devolution is sufficient. Come to think of it maybe we should change to Darwin's Theory of Devolution; that would be consistent with the evidence.

I believe the actual figures are about 3000 people over 300 years, less than 10 per year. By comparison atheist regimes such as Nazi Germany, Stalin, Mao, etc. murdered millions in far less time. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Of the millions of genetic differences that separate humans and chimps I would expect most to be innate and some would be inherited defects accumulated over the last 6000 years.If however humans and chimps are assumed to have a common ancestor ~7 million years ago then the hundreds of non-homologous genes would either be an increase in information or losses from the genome of the common ancestor. Since it is unlikely that so many genes could have been produced and fixed in the evolutionary time available the common ancestor must have had a super-genome with hundreds more genes than either the chimp or human today. Massive devolution is indicated. You'll have to explain the maths to me. Dr Adequate came up with a quite different figure; you might want to discuss it with him. I had a discussion with him on this topic in another thread.IF neutral theory and other assumptions of evolution are correct this potentially explains a large fraction of the point genetic differences.

Quite obviously, the 40 million genetic differences that separate chimps and humans make a big difference.

Only if you assume that all differences result from mutations. Most differences will have originated directly in each created kind. If God changes a genome then it won't cause genetic problems, like when God created Eve from Adam's rib. However the vast majority of mutations will be detrimental or neutral; genetic entropy. Ah, I see. You're talking about the total number of mutations that could have occurred. Dr Adequate was talking about the number that could have been fixed by genetic drift. Hence the big difference.According to Message 176 in 7 million years "the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number." These would be mostly point mutations.For a number of reasons I argued that the number would actually be significantly smaller, perhaps half, although it remains at a similar magnitude. This applies only to neutral mutations and not to beneficial mutations under selection. For these the limit is ~1670 in 10 million years. While the number of human genes that have no chimp homologue is less than this we would also have to consider that a new gene is unlikely to arise in a single step. Particularly where a gene produces multiple proteins many steps would be required. In addition there would be mutations in the regulatory DNA to control how these genes are expressed. Furthermore any neutral intermediate steps will not be selected for and are likely to be lost through genetic drift. So I think there is good reason to believe that mutations could not have produced all the non-homologous genes within the evolutionary time frame.

How does the Bible teach 6,000 years? How does the Bible teach 6000-years - creation.com

Mutations would have started accumulating immediately after the Fall. How quickly depends on generations not on years. The Flood would have caused a major bottleneck but it would not have reset things to zero; that is the people and animals on the Ark would already have some mutations.Taking the Bible as literally true would be extremely foolish. In contrast, medieval and patristic interpreters used the term ‘literal’ to mean the grammatical-historical understanding, which could include a figurative meaning if that’s what the text taught. Thus to them, the ‘literal’ meaning of the ‘the windows of the heavens were opened’ (Genesis 7:11) would include its metaphorical usage for a massive rainfall.Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains parables, poetry, similes, puns, parallelism, etc.

quote:

---

Conclusion

​

We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?

​

Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.
Should Genesis be taken literally - creation.com

---

Can you give us the examples you were referring to?