[Avodah] evolution [was: Clear Thinking about Male Homosexuals]

[T613K at aol.com]

From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom"  <kbloom at gmail.com>

>>Please name some specific  physical/biological processes that would be
required by macroevolution, which  are not required by microevolution....

Once we determine specific  processes necessary for macroevlution, we can
search to see whether evidence  of that process has been reproduced
experimentally on a microevolution  timescale. For example, one might
propose that speciation events (where a  species whose members could all
interbreed splits into two species that can  only interbreed within their
new species) are example of such a process. To  which I could answer that
there is a long list of experiments that have  observed speciation events
at _http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html_ 
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)    <<

 
 
 
>>>>>>
 
The article you linked to is long but very interesting and relevant to this 
 discussion.  It starts by showing how many different definitions there are 
 for "species" and how difficult it is to determine whether two birds or 
two fish  or two ears of corn are different species or different varieties of 
the same  species.
 
It then gives many examples of "new species" that have been observed as  
they came into being in nature or as they were created in the lab.  In each  
of these cases, some kind of hybridization occurred and the new species  
contained only old genes from its progenitors, not brand new spontaneously  
occurring genes or features.
 
You want to know what biological process would be required by  
macroevolution that would not be required by microevolution.  The answer  is:  something 
brand new.  Brand new mutations.
 
Darwin believed that evolution happened by random mutations, and that is  
what modern Darwinists believe too.  He knew only gross anatomy, scientists  
today know genetics and would say that the random mutations happen at the  
genetic level.  
 
For evolution to work according to the theory, you couldn't have birds  
having bird babies forever and grasses having grass babies forever.    You'd 
have to have some process whereby entirely new features appeared that had  
never before been seen.  The accumulation of these tiny but entirely new  
changes, over time, would turn dinosaurs into birds, forelegs into wings, blind  
creatures into sighted creatures, water creatures into land creatures.
 
In nature, random genetic mutations are almost always harmful and inimical  
to the survival of the individual.  Think of serious birth defects, defects 
 in the creature's ability to breathe or to digest food or to move  
normally.  It is hard even to think of a random mutation that improves the  
functioning of an individual. 
 
Maybe it is possible that exceptional speed in a racehorse or exceptional  
intelligence in a pet bird /might/ be the result of such a random  mutation. 
 More likely is that the exceptionally swift or intelligent got a  double 
dose of some genetic something that already existed in its forebears, not  a 
new "swiftness" gene or "intelligence" gene.  Even if these features  really 
are something new that spontaneously appear, these features die  out.
 
What we actually see in nature is that such mutations (if such they  are) 
are rapidly swamped by normal versions of the same gene, such that  over 
several generations we see regression to the mean. Genius parents have  smart 
kids but not genius kids. Exceptionally tall parents have tall kids but  kids 
who are a little shorter than themselves. We would not expect to  see the 
production of a strain of faster horses or smarter birds (unless  humans have 
manipulated the stock, but then we are into the territory of guided  
evolution and not the random evolution posited by the Darwinists).  
 
One place where we may be seeing evolution in action is the Tay-Sachs gene  
and other similar genetic diseases that involve the failure to  produce 
certain enzymes.  These genes seem to be associated with high  intelligence and 
also sometimes confer immunity to disease (Bearers of the T-S  gene seem to 
be immune to TB).  But even in these cases, nothing /new/ has  appeared.   
Rather, the defect, the new mutation, is apparently  a taking-away.  Not the 
synthesis of a new enzyme but the failure to  synthesize a needed enzyme.  
How they make people smarter -- it is  speculated -- is by increasing the 
number of connections in the brain --   because they lack the whatever-it-is 
that is supposed to tell the brain to stop  multiplying connections.  But 
increase them /too/ much, and you get a  severely handicapped individual that 
cannot function.  Inherit one gene,  you're smart.  Inherit two genes, you 
die.  
 
This kind of evolution will never produce a new species, no matter how you  
define species.  It isn't going to happen that Jews will be genetically  
incapable of interbreeding with non-Jews (to give just one of the many  
definitions of "species" -- a breeding population that can't interbreed with  
others).  So this is microevolution at work.
 
Ein chadash tachas hashemesh.  Macroevolution would require chadash  tachas 
hashemesh.
 
 
 
 


--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 






------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120229/0ff819bb/attachment-0002.htm>