Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

One reason that discussion of mutations of viruses and bacteria doesn't
seem to work to convince anyone of macroevolution is that this is the type
of evolution that is already accepted by pretty much everyone. You might
make more headway in arguing that microevolution implies macroevolution if
you can point to instances in which these mutations produce a more complex
organism.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Jim Armstrong wrote:

> I think you the point entirely. Micro vs macro is only a matter of
> scale. Any evolution remains evolution - micro just qualifies it as
> smaller in degree. It does not dismiss it as not "the real thing". The
> mechanism for variation is present, as is the impetus for preferential
> selection. That's all that is required. This micro vs macro argument is
> basically an artificial distinction, though longer times certainly
> permit greater cumulative change. If there is microevolution (and there
> is a lot of agreement here), then just wait for long enough and the
> accumulated changes over the much greater number of generations is
> likely to be more profound. The point at which that profundity reaches
> the "macro" level is a tad subjective. But the time required seem to be
> something like a few orders of magnitude greater than the life cycle of
> the life form (four? six?). That means that days (hours) may be enough
> for significant change for the smallest, fastest reproducing living
> things, but clearly not enough time for evolution of larger mammals and
> such. That might take 10,000 years or more. I expect this is one basic
> reason why an old earth perspective is so abhorent to some folks,
> because it ultimately accommodates a time span consistent with the
> evolutionary explanations.
>
> JimA
>
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Iain,
> >
> > You say, "...in the case of the immune system, God has used
> > evolutionary processes to defend your body against disease." But is
> > this not an example of micro evolution, so-called? It is hardly the
> > _real thing_ . Indeed, where - except in the minds of its
> > protagonists - are we to find even one clear-cut example of macro
> > evolution?
> >
> > Knowing you to be attentive to the Lord's words, I gather you
> > accept evolution as a 'tree' that yields good fruit. Possibly you are
> > able to defend that view by suggesting a few of its merits.
> >
> > Vernon
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Iain Strachan <mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> > To: Vernon Jenkins <mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> > Cc: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; Don Nield
> > <mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz> ; asa@calvin.edu
> > <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/17/06, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net
> > <mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>> wrote:
> >
> > (1) Test the fruits of that philosophy or doctrine before
> > making it your own. (Mt.7:15-20).
> >
> > On this basis - as I'm sure you must agree - evolution has an
> > exceptionally poor track record.
> >
> > Vernon,
> >
> > I hope you will reconsider this statement when you next get an
> > infection of some kind and your body's immune system fights back
> > and defeats the infection. What happens is evolution on a rapid
> > timescale in your own body - through a process of rapid random
> > mutation and natural selection, your immune system finds the
> > correct antibody to bond on to the invading pathogen, to mark it
> > out for destruction by other components of the immune system. We
> > are indeed, "fearfully and wonderfully made", and in the case of
> > the immune system, God has used evolutionary processes to defend
> > your body against disease. Next time you get a cold and don't die
> > as a result, perhaps you would like to reconsider your statement
> > "exceptionally poor track record", because an evolutionary process
> > saved you. It's not a philosophy, it's a physical process. I
> > know there are some ( e.g. Dawkins and Dennett) who want to make
> > it a philosophy, but just about everyone else on the list would
> > disagree that it is.
> >
> > Iain
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 30 21:36:22 2006