Re: [asa] ChristiaNet blurb

> >> Anyone have a good definition of micro vs macro?

In the context of creation science, ID, etc., microevolution is
evolution I accept and macroevolution is evolution I reject.
Conveniently, any example I cannot refute at the moment can thus be
dismissed as mere microevolution. Likewise, it can be claimed that
popular ID advocates all reject macroevolution whether they accept
practically all evolution (like Behe) or deny more than some young
earthers (like Wells or Ross).

Shuffling existing genes or modifying them readily creates new genes.

The amount experimentally observable depends on how long you run the
experiment and what the experiment is. Fruit fly mutants exist that,
on usual definitions, belong in a new class or subphylum of
arthropods. For approximate comparison, mammals versus birds are
different classes, and all vertebrates are within one subphylum of
Chordata. Thus, one can argue that experimental results have produced
the equivalent of fish to human or perhaps invertebrate to human
transformation.

Some biologists restrict macroevolution to the idea that anything
different is involved at species level and above. If they think
ordinary population-level variation explains everything, they would
identify full evolution from abiogenesis on up as microevolution.

In summary, there is no clean break between the two, nor does the
claim "I don't believe in macroevolution" tell anything definite about
where the person isdrawing the line, nor is the claim that advocates
of evolution are failing to distinguish between macroevolution and
microevolution a valid objection.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.