Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man

From: Jim Armstrong (
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 18:38:04 EST

  • Next message: Alexanian, Moorad: "RE: Johnson on Bible Answer Man"

    I understand your point, though I differ. In science, micro and macro
    are usually used to indicate orders-of-magnitude differences in scale,
    not kind. All of evolution is about changes at the genetic level (all at
    the same general spatial dimensional scale). However unintentional,
    microevolution and macroevolution are perfectly descriptive when
    understood as relating to timeframes that are between one or more orders
    of magnitude different. The evolutionary creature changes observed in
    micro- and macro- time frames seem to me to be all about degree. I just
    submit that if you pile up enough micro changes (with the passage of
    appropriate time), they would be indistinguishable from a macro change.
    That seems so straightforward to me.

    "Kind" is another one of those words which represents a loose collection
    of differentiators, and many of those differentiators are continuing to
    fall by the wayside in light of the remarkable genomic work. Take the
    case of the genomes of mus musculus (house mouse) and us. We now know
    that 99% of our genes are equivalent to (and 80% of those EXACTLY
    identical to) those of the mouse. We both have about 30,000 genes and
    only 300 are unique to our or their kind! A tail gene is not unique. We
    both have it. Fortunately, the tail gene is unexpressed for the vast
    majority of us humans. We both also have a horn gene, but this one is
    unexpressed for both "kinds". We both have an eye gene that codes for a
    simple single-lens eye. But swap that mouse-eye gene into the eye-gene
    location of a fruit fly, and it expresses as an appropriately small
    compound (multi-lensed) eye! That's a real result. So how fundamentally
    different are we in kind - as different species (another sort of
    artificial and troubled term of differentiation)? The answer seems to
    be, "not very", at least in the basic genetic and even architectural
    terms. Moreover, the differences that exist seem to be precisely the
    result of "the passage of 'enough' time."

    Finally, Liquid crystals, as near as the watch on your wrist, can go
    "continuously go from one to the other." That's another understanding
    that has changed in recent years.


    Jim Armstrong

    Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

    >The meaning of the terms micro and macro in physics is clear. That is the way I use such terms in general. Microevolution is changes at the microscopic level that can manifest themselves at the macroscopic level, e.g., dog breeding. The genetic changes are minuscule and within a given species. Macroevolution is by nature a change in kind rather than degree and means changes that may not be possible by the passage of “enough” time. Crystals and fluids are of that sort. One cannot continuously go from one to the other. Moorad
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Jim Armstrong []
    > Sent: Sun 3/16/2003 12:27 AM
    > To:
    > Cc:
    > Subject: Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
    > I know this is not new turf, but it seems to me that the terms
    > microevolution and macroevolution are just a bit of sophistry (as is
    > perhaps contrasting "fact" with "assumption"). Those micro- and macro-
    > terms and the dividing line between them seem to be artifacts of the
    > evolution discussion and not descriptive of some well-defined stay-put
    > dividing line in nature. Calling a spade a spade, isn't the real issue
    > either the timeline (micro becomes macro with the passage of "enough"
    > time) or the special creation of man?
    > Whether intentional or not, your last sentence captures well the
    > challenge experienced by some of us in attempting to balance intent and
    > worldview. I wonder if it is a right-brain vs left-brain conflict thing?!
    > Regards - Jim Armstrong
    > Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
    > >I am not defending PJ’s personal interactions with others. My statement refers to his scientific/philosophical view that correctly criticizes the statement of evolutionists that macroevolution is a fact rather than a scientific assumption. As a Christian, I please God and not my ego when discussing scientific issues but I will not be deterred from calling a spade a spade. Moorad
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Michael Roberts []
    > > Sent: Sat 3/15/2003 2:09 PM
    > > To: Alexanian, Moorad; Jim Armstrong;
    > > Cc:
    > > Subject: Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
    > >
    > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 18:38:23 EST