I do, too.
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Donald Howes <dhowes@grug.une.edu.au>
> To: Mike Hardie <hardie@globalserve.net>
> Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Evolution!! (D. Howes)
> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 5:46 PM
>
> Hi,
>
> I dont think it's as simple as that, if experimentally it was impossible
> to find a distinction between macro and micro I don't think these terms
> would have even been applied! As I see it, there are some kind of genetic
> boundries that mean dogs are dogs, for all our engeneering, they are
still
> dogs. And more importantly, they can only vary so much, without mutation
> they can't change more than that.
>
> There are many examples of evolution that show a horse evolving into a
> bigger horse for example, but beyond that there is very little evidence
of
> anything. I think that things like this are evidence for a difference
> between macro and micro. The fact that we can't clearly define the
> boundries doesn't mean they are not there. Our fly is still a fly, and
yet
> it has changed much, and into many varieties of fly, but it is still a
> fly. On that evidence alone I could presume that there are boundries,
> otherwise it would be just as easy to make a moth out of our fly as it
> would be to make just another variety if fly!
>
> I think what I am trying to say is that there is genetic information in a
> creature that has room for certain variation, like a little dog to a
> massive beast of a dog, but beyond that, you need new information. I have
> no idea if random mutation can create more information or not, so I won't
> comment. If you want to see micro evolution, you can recreate it in a
lab,
> if you can't recreate it, it's probably macro! Thats my definition of the
> difference, I just made up, I like it.
>
> Donald
>
> _______________________
> Donald Howes
> Acting Systems Manager
> Research services
> UNE
>
> "I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for
> everyone who believes" Romans 1:16
> ______________________
>
> On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Mike Hardie wrote:
>
> > Donald Howes wrote:
> > >I'm getting confused, I don't know about everybody else, but are we
talking
> > >about micro or macro change? If it is micro, then within genetic
bounds
> > >natural selection does indeed promote certain traits. I was under the
> > >impression that the bacterium with antibiotic resistance was a case of
> > >this. The one's that had it survived, and are now the dominant strain.
The
> > >same is true of hair and skin(I don't know about the cholesterol
thing).
> > >
> > >The question about the fruit fly is a macro one. Is it possible to
mutate a
> > >fly past the point of being a fly?
> > <snip>
> >
> > I don't think "micro" and "macro" is a real distinction at all. That
is,
> > the supposed boundary between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is
> > whether there is difference in "kind"... but all the various "kinds" of
> > animals are defined based on essentially arbitrary criteria, not on
some
> > real boundary we can observe in nature. For example, we might say that
> > "having feathers" is a unique property of birds. But this does not
mean
> > that having feathers is an intrinsically significant sort of thing, nor
> > that an evolutionary change producing feathers is any different than
one
> > producing, say, a difference in coloration.
> >
> > In other words, if you grant that evolutionary change happens, then you
> > must grant that "macro" changes can happen. This is because the only
> > difference between a macro and a micro change is whether or not the
change
> > places a creature on the other side of a boundary between definitions.
> > Simply put: the difference between a micro and a macro change is a
purely
> > semantic one, not an actual difference in the sort of thing that
occurs.
> >
> > So, to answer your question, if it is possible to mutate a fly, then
yes it
> > is possible to mutate a fly past the point of being a fly at all. This
> > will simply happen when the mutations become significant enough in
number
> > and scope that the resulting beastie no longer meets our definition of
> > "fly-kind".
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mike Hardie
> > <hardie@globalserve.net>
> > http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/
> >
>