RE: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

I didn't really state anything about distinguishing micro versus macroevolution. I'm no biologist either, so I have to rely on those who have more experience in the field. And from what I read, your distinction between micro and macro is difficult if not impossible to maintain in practice. That doesn't stop a lot of creation science writers (mostly non-biologists) from making that distinction, of course.

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of wjp
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:29 AM
To: Jon Tandy
Cc: asa
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically
Importance: Low

John:

What you seem to be saying is that there is "really" no distinction between what is called micro-evolution and macro.

I had thought that in micro evolution we have an established gene pool from which environmental factors could select or favor some.

Whereas, in macro-evolution we need be speaking of some notion of new genes, ones that were not previously in the population, but, nonetheless, might be able to mate with those lacking the new genes.

This distinction appears to make some sense to me and would, at least conceptually, permit the recognition of a new species, i.e., when a certain set of novel genes were in place.

But as I've said before I don't really understand how genes are capable of determining what an adult looks like. If genes are merely segments of DNA, then it doesn't appear sufficiently equipped to establish the development or character of an individual.

bill

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 6 16:53:21 2009