Roy,
Saquist has already answered the question... you just have to remove the extraneous words and understand what he is saying:
"I believe ... a biblical perspective."
Or specifically:
"The bible validates what is true... not reality, observable phenomenoa, empirical data, or other myths."
Aside from the Biblical perspective there is the emperical perspective. That perspective is a different image from scientific theoretical perspective.
The theoretical perspective is extrapolative, propposing a larger and larger picture over time. This perspective is also limmited by imagination and yet exagerates the emperical perspective. You refer to the exageration as "macro evolution" and the emperical perspective as "mirco evolution". The confluence of the two, what you dub "evolution."
Revelations concerning the forward progression of DNA in cells has revealed with artifical alterations that mutation does not yield the necessary diversity to account for the complete restructuring of animal and plant kingdoms. While studies revealed plants were more suspectable to immediate change only 1% of those mutation induced in laboratories were benefical and animals produced results less than one percent favorable, outline by Wolf Lonnig.
While that may have been the most latest revelation we've known about mutations harmful effects for sometime. There is consensus with Lonnig's findings.
"Most of them are harmful or lethal" -Carl Sagan...
"The greatest proportion of mutation are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutatated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every sucessful or useful mutation, there are many thousandss which are harmful."-Peo Koller
"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutatants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process"-Encycopedia Americana
Placed in competition with normal insects purposefully mutated insects had a disadvantage.To that effect Stebbins says:
"After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."-G. Ledyard Stebbins
Again in agreement with Lonnig's findings and mirroring observable realty.
Isaac Asimov admitted: "Most mutations are for the worse." But then contradicted himself. "In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward."
Would any process that resulting in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered benefical? If a contractor had this sort or sucess ratio how long would he be employed. Would you feel safe with a driver that made this many bad decision vs good decisions.
Essentialy this devision of marco and micro evolution is non-existent. Even if all mutations were benefical, they couldn't produce anything new.
"A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water"-The World Book Encyclodpedia
Nothing new. The may change color or textuture of hair and skin, or even add a sixth finger to hand of five but nothing new comes into existence.
It does come down to odds and probabilty.
"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better." -Geneticist Dobzhansky
It doesn't seem reasonable that the precision processes in a cell are built up by a procedure that tears down. The extrapolative perspective is directly contradicting the emperical perspective.
The chances of even a simple protein molecule forming at random from the very begining
1 in 10 to the 113th power. Any event that has one chance in just
10 to the 50th power is regarded by mathematicians as never happening. That
10 to the 113th power is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe.
Hernandez Lemus of the Mexican International University in Mexico gives a
1 in 9 trillion odds of a chromosome evolving on it's own.
No fewer than 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cells activity. The chances of obtaining all of these at random is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power
...."An outrageously small probability" -Fred Hoyle
In his book with Chandra who I've quoted before Hoyle adds this: "
that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." then adds.
"If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."
The chance of forming histones, thought to govern gene activity, at the simplest to be one in 20 to the 100th power, another huge number. That is
"larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes."
"Preoteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein." Hitiching
- "Which came first,"- [/B]"The answer must be they developed in parallel."
-Richard E Dickerson
Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished in one blow by espousing a step by step process by which natural selection could do it's work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select. This is our emperical perspective. The theoretical perspective is massively misproportioned and contradictory to reality and it's emperical foundation.
