From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 08:53:35 EST
Physicist know how to turn lead into gold---transmutation of elements.
It can be done but it is not economically feasible. The question is, can
biologists/geneticists do the same with species? Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Armstrong [mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:41 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
OK, but isn't micro/macro still a matter of scale in these descriptions,
not about degree/kind? I confess this is nitpicking and probably moot
since there is no real question that the terms have been coopted and
morphed a bit (not blaming you for that!) for use as in your earlier
post. It's just a reflection of a problem I have with labels in general
and the lack of precision of meaning those shorthand symbols seem all to
often to embody.
And wasn't the micro/macroevolution discussion in the last couple of
exchanges about purely physical evolution?
Regards - Jim Armstrong
Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
>The notions of collective effects, quasi-particles, elementary
>excitations are all microscopic effects that manifest themselves at the
macroscopic level but are not thought of as microscopic. However,
superfluidity, Bose-Einstein condensation, superconductivity, etc. are
microscopic phenomena at the macroscopic level---atoms lose their
individual identities and behave as a single quantum entity. The scale
in both instances is from the veryy small to the very large yet they are
different in that the microscopic manifestation can be either
macroscopic or microscopic.
>
>In group theory, there are discrete and continuous groups. Discrete
>groups are those studied in crystallography and solid-state physics and
the elements of the group cannot be obtained by means of infinitesimal
changes. However, the continuous groups are such that finite
transformation can indeed be made up by infinitesimal transformations.
Of course, it seems to me that mutations would always involve finite
changes rather than truly continuous changes.
>
>Of course, if you compare humans to animals at the purely physical
>level, then we may be rather similar. However, one may suppose that
man is nothing but matter but that certainly goes beyond science by
making some rather strong philosophical assumptions.
>
>Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Armstrong [mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net]
> Sent: Sun 3/16/2003 6:38 PM
> To:
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: 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 artifici! al 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.
>
> Regards
>
> 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 [mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net]
> Sent: Sun 3/16/2003 12:27 AM
> To:
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> 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
[mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
> > Sent: Sat 3/15/2003 2:09 PM
> > To: Alexanian, Moorad; Jim Armstrong;
asa@calvin.edu
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 08:56:00 EST