Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo
As a biologist you will be able to correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that whatever changes happen in any organism, be it a dog, a plant or somebody's daughter the genetic information must be already present within the DNA of the organism in question.
Sorry but no it does not have to be present already. Recombination and crossing over alters the genetic code but not in discrete bundles of whole genes. It can split 2 genes and recombine them to make a new one. This is not always going to create a huge change because it might split regions of DNA that are non-coding - IE. are not transcribed into RNA and the RNA is not translated into protein.

Then if this changes something it might change the promoter region of a gene and alter it's expression by increasing it or decreasing it or switching it off. Even then whether or not you switch off or alter a gene making it different there may be other genes which will substitute for it. Multiple genes coding for similar proteins which will do the same job.

On the rare occasion a gene is altered and remains functional it may lead to the production of a new protein which changes something about the organism that did not exist in either of it's parents.

In some cases a change in the DNA might not become noticeable for several generations either. especially if the altered gene is recessive.

Genetic engineering by scientists is known to be unstable in inheritance and out of one transformation aimed at a large number of cells only a few of those will be successfully changed.

Some will though. there are plants such as a bald root barley which is basically the same as it's non mutant parent except that it does not have root hairs. It can survive but not as easily in stressful conditions such as low phosphorus etc. This mutation has been stably inherited and plants are available to study - used to see what function the root hairs have - not for commercial release.

There are a lot of similar examples in science. If you alter a gene that interferes with something vital to survival though it will die and that is widely accepted in the scientific community.

We're not talking about what humans do here though. Human methods for genetic engineering are not anywhere near that of nature itself. We are not god.

I guess whether or not you believe macro evolution exists depends on what timeline you believe it has to work over.

I watched plate of the apes the other night and i thought - I CAN see the resemblance of Mat Damon to the apes. I don't mean to insult him there coz I think he's a hottie but I don't believe we're that far different. A bit of extra hair, that large forehead, big shoulders, more muscle........

I'm not saying we came from the apes - last I heard people were saying we have a common ancestor. I do think macroevolution is possible though because I look around me and i think the earth is old.

I think that makes it more special though. I see something wonderful in the fact that it's not just a flash in the pan but something with a long history that goes on longer than humans are likely to be around and in my opinion was here long before us. It makes us less of a big deal in the grand scheme of things which I think is good because it's kind of humbling and makes us appreciate the fact that there IS something bigger than us at work.