|
Q: Who discovered
the theory of macrodevelopment?
A: Dr. Robert F. DeHaan. Keep in mind
however, that he did not sanction everything on this web site, and the
mistakes are probably not his.
Q: Where does natural selection fit in to the theory of macrodevelopment?
A:Natural selection takes a back seat to macrodevelopment. That natural
selection occurs is undeniable - but it only acts on the available variation.
The real power of the creation of new species is in the ability of the
genome to produce new code. How this happens is not known, but it is increasingly
clear that mutation/selection is inadequate. Rather it seems reasonable
to look for an innate ability of the genome to alter the regulation of
gene expression, causing new morphologies with the same proteins.
Q: How does the theory
deal with the origin of life? What is the source of the "preexisting
plan"?
A: The theory of macrodevelopment does not necessarily deal with the origin
of life and the source of the plan is unknown. The theory rather best
describes how life developed on the planet throughout the eons.
Q: How can you not
deal with the origin of life and yet criticize the darwinist theory which
does so?
A: The neo-darwinists only pretend to have a satisfactory solution to
the origin of life.
Q: Is MacroDevelopment a creationist theory?
A: A creator is implicated in the theory, the same as the Big Bang theory
implicates a creator. But note that the theory is not inconsistent with
Sir Frances Crick's idea that genetic material arrived on the earth by
meteorite. See the definition of creationism on the definitions page.
Q: Is MacroDevelopment a new theory of evolution?
A: It could be said that MacroDevelopment is a theory of evolution, if
by evolution you mean "change through time". However, the word
"evolution" excludes the idea of design for many people. See
the definition of evolution on the definitions page.
Q: Are you saying that the genetic program for the entire biosphere was
contained in a single cell at the beginning of life 3.5 billion years
ago?
A: No, the idea that there was a single progenitor cell is based on materialistic
assumptions- the appearance of life is so improbable it likely only happened
once, and because of a common genetic code among all organisms. But if
the program could somehow fit into a single cell, the idea is actually
consistent with the physical data.
Q: Haven't protein families and phylogenetic trees demonstrated unequivocally
the theory of neo-darwinism?
A: No. What is does demonstrate is that some proteins and their respective
genes have a common ancestry, also demonstrating that the whole organism
has a common ancestry with other organisms that share proteins with similar
sequences. This observation is in harmony with MacroDevelopment.
Q: What about the
account of creation in Genesis chapter one? Isn't the Bible the Word of
God?
A: You can trust the scripture but not man's interpretation of it. Keep
in mind that for the first chapter of Genesis the target audience is a
small population of people living in the Fertile Crescent at least 2000
years before Christ, and you have to keep in mind how those people understood
the text. No doubt it was not an issue then about whether the earth is
10,000 or 4.5 billion years old.
|
