News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Hi Russ

Not true.

Actually it is true, the distinction between micro and macro is largely artificial though it is usually blown out of all proportions by creationists who misrepresent what it’s actually about. In short the difference between the two is not in the kinds of changes that they represent, both represent exactly the same sorts of changes, but rather when they occurred. Micro changes that occurred long ago and have since been overlaid by many more micro changes are considered macro today. The reason is simply that, while at the time they occurred they were not dramatic changes for the organisms involved today to make such changes would be virtually impossible while micro changes are observed all the time.

Let me give you an example, today it would be a huge change to alter a lion from 4 legs to 6 legs while maintaining it’s fitness but when these body plan’s were laid down the organisms involved were far smaller and simpler. They had repeating body segments in which the exact number of pairs of legs was variable so changing from 10 to 8 or 4 to 6 was a simple duplication/deletion event and occurred quite a few times that we know of. So at the time these numbers were set in the genomes they were simple micro changes. To make the same change today would be a major or Macro change.

Thus we see the true nature of the macro – micro distinction, macro changes are simply micro changes which occurred a long time ago and which have since been overlaid by many later changes making them seem improbable despite how simple they were at the time they actually occurred.

Micro-evolution (which is not evolution at all but a form of adaptation) expresses attributes that are already expressed in the genes.

OK if that is to be your definition of macro I can accept it for the sake of argument. By your definition then the evolutionary changes observed in those bacterial experiments I related earlier are macro changes as the genetic codes that have evolved under observation did not exist in the original organism. And yes we do know that as the entire genome of the progenitor of those organisms is known so we know what it did and did not contain.

If you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to—at the very least—admit that science does not know if these expressions already exist. Your position is (again) based on mammoth assumptions.

In the bacterial experiments I have explained we do in fact know that these ‘expressions’ did not exist in the progenitors as the genome was fully sequenced and can be resequenced if necessary as froze samples of the originals still exist for exactly this purpose. Further if these adaptations were programmed it seems improbable that every colony put through the process comes up with a unique answer to the challenges. Surely a programmed approach would come up with the same answer at least some percentage of the time. Further no one has ever observed an mechanisms by which such programmed changes could be produced. That’s not to say that such a mechanisms doesn’t exist just that we have no evidence for it’s existence so to postulate it as your answer to explaining the observed facts of evolution is leaping beyond the data at which point people should be asking themselves, why are you trying so hard to push this idea that is not supported by the evidence.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."

—Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

That’s a great quote but who actually said it. The original Charles Darwin, author of “Origin of species” could not have written it as he died before molecular biology came into existence so is it a false quote or is it some other ‘Charles Darwin’ who is being misleadingly quoted? It is very poor scholarship to site quotations out of context like that, you should always site back to the original source so that the veracity and context of your quotes can be examined in case someone doubts your sources. There’s a good reason why hearsay is not permitted in a court of law.

A little digging on Google produced a source for the above quotation, it was writing by N.C. Gillespie and was followed by an out of context quotation from Darwin that Gillespie used to illustrate his point. The latter by Darwin has been dropped in this citation of yours Russ and only Gillespie’s words are left yet you attribute them to Darwin. Interesting! You really need to be more careful of your sources Russ.

All the best Russ

In Reason

Russell