<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16441"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial>From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom"
<kbloom@gmail.com><BR><BR>>>Please name some specific
physical/biological processes that would be<BR>required by macroevolution, which
are not required by microevolution....<BR><BR>Once we determine specific
processes necessary for macroevlution, we can<BR>search to see whether evidence
of that process has been reproduced<BR>experimentally on a microevolution
timescale. For example, one might<BR>propose that speciation events (where a
species whose members could all<BR>interbreed splits into two species that can
only interbreed within their<BR>new species) are example of such a process. To
which I could answer that<BR>there is a long list of experiments that have
observed speciation events<BR>at <A
href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html</A>
<<</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>>>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ein chadash tachas hashemesh. Macroevolution would require chadash
tachas hashemesh.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><BR><STRONG>--Toby Katz<BR>=============</STRONG><BR>Romney -- good
values, good family, good
hair<BR><BR><BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------
</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>