Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"

Religions > Atheism > Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 5

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Aaron Kim"
Date:	25 Jun 2007 01:03:53 PM
Object:	Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA
molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and
which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are
the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every
mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the
DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage
and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The
direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can
only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and
Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and
random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations
are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the
structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for
the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a
highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change
in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an
improvement.19
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations
have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments
on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic
Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have
been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant
genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of
evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result
from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in
failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce
mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so
mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies
were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist
geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have
sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these
efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The left
picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right
shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of
mutation.
It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have
been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the
world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have
never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21
Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the
experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected
generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark,
and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations,
practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced.
Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have
survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are
sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human
beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans
result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down
syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that
leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary
mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to
survive.
A mutant fly with
deformed wings.
The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific
article about mutations:
Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have
been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A
recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different
genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically
in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome)
are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many
different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by
mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful
mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some
positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only
for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of
the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive
mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23
The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the
disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which
serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and
undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin
molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle
cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason.
However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders
in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists
as a "useful mutation."
The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell
anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened.
They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a
"gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people
born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from
being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a
"useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.
It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul
Grass�, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear
on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grass� compared
mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text."
And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information,
but merely damage such information as already exists. Grass� explained this
fact in this way:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one
another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given
direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter
how.. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being,
sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the
phenomenon of life and anarchy.24
So for that reason, as Grass� puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be,
mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html
19 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust,
1988. (emphasis added)
20 Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science,
vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159. (emphasis added)
21 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books,
London, 1984, p. 48.
22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p.
70. (emphasis added)
23 David A. Demick, "The Blind Gunman", Impact, no. 308, February 1999.
(emphasis added)
24 Pierre-Paul Grass�, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New
York, 1977, p. 97, 98.
25 Pierre-Paul Grass�, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New
York, 1977, p. 88. (emphasis added)
--
Listen to Zion Redemption's Radio hosted by Art Bulla and Aaron Kim on
Sunday from 3 to 4 (pst). Just go to
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=3513 All are invited to
call in live, email at art@artbulla.com, or by MSM artbulla@hotmail.com.
This show is dedicated to the redemption of Zion, revelations of Jesus
Christ, authority, Priesthood, Kingdom of God, doctrine discussed pertaining
to the salvation of Ephraim and Manasseh. During non broadcast hours you can
also listen to archived shows.
Aaron Kim
www.artbulla.com
.

User: "Dan Listermann"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 03:09:26 PM

"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5eaecbF37fbcgU1@mid.individual.net...
Most of the time, they cause so much damage

and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Operative words, "Most of the time." Throw a lot of time and individuales
at something and something good will eventually develop from the huge mess
of bad. But it only takes a few good mutations to change a species. Anti
evolutionists need to spend some time in probably and statistics or maybe
quality control.
.

User: "RetroProphet"
Title: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	25 Jun 2007 03:20:53 PM

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?
You continue to present ***** even after refusing
to defend the specific arguments of others who are
pointing out your errors. You are a coward.
You don't even have the balls to stand up for
YOUR OWN WORDS:
You wrote:
===
"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found."
===
Here you have put forth a specific event that
YOU would consider "real evolution," asserting
that this defined event has never occurred.
But what did you do when I pointed out that
that precise event HAS been observed in the case
of the "Nylon bug" that I presented to you several
times in previous exchanges -- and that you have
claimed to have an understanding of?
What you did was to ignore the fact that you are in error
and have thus lost the debate. You are a coward.
Here is the smoking gun -- bang bang your argument
is dead, and by your own definition:
"If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.
By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."
You have just lost the debate definitively."
Is cowardice a virtue in your theology?
Act like a man and face up to the facts.
.

User: "Aaron Kim"
Title: Re: Retrograde Is Full of It (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	02 Jul 2007 09:18:20 PM

"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f5p8350uj3@drn.newsguy.com...

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?
You continue to present ***** even after refusing
to defend the specific arguments of others who are
pointing out your errors. You are a coward.
You don't even have the balls to stand up for
YOUR OWN WORDS:

You wrote:
===
"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found."
===

Here you have put forth a specific event that
YOU would consider "real evolution," asserting
that this defined event has never occurred.

But what did you do when I pointed out that
that precise event HAS been observed in the case
of the "Nylon bug" that I presented to you several
times in previous exchanges -- and that you have
claimed to have an understanding of?

What you did was to ignore the fact that you are in error
and have thus lost the debate. You are a coward.

Here is the smoking gun -- bang bang your argument
is dead, and by your own definition:

"If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.

By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."

You have just lost the debate definitively."

I addressed this question before. The bacteria already had the capability to
eat nylon. There was no new change.
.

User: "RetroProphet"
Title: Re: Retrograde Is Full of It (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	02 Jul 2007 10:32:01 PM

In article <5etpviF38imlvU1@mid.individual.net>, Aaron Kim says...

"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f5p8350uj3@drn.newsguy.com...

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

You don't even have the balls to stand up for
YOUR OWN WORDS:

You wrote:
===
"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found."
===

Here you have put forth a specific event that
YOU would consider "real evolution," asserting
that this defined event has never occurred.

But what did you do when I pointed out that
that precise event HAS been observed in the case
of the "Nylon bug" that I presented to you several
times in previous exchanges -- and that you have
claimed to have an understanding of?

What you did was to ignore the fact that you are in error
and have thus lost the debate. You are a coward.

Here is the smoking gun -- bang bang your argument
is dead, and by your own definition:

"If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.

By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."

You have just lost the debate definitively."

I addressed this question before. The bacteria already
had the capability to eat nylon. There was no new change.

I see an assertion -- but where's the science
to back it up, Aaron?
You did not present any science when you made the
assertion previously:
"Typical atheist evolutionist deliberately trying
to confuse the subject with more esoteric crap.
You speculate that bacteria grew the ability to
eat rayon. Scientists lie like you do. What has to
be the case is that the bacteria already had the
ability to eat rayon and it was through natural
selection that this bacteria existed."
If the bacteria was "created" with the ability to
digest nylon, how did natural selection preserve
this ability through all the years that no nylon
existed anywhere on Earth for it to eat?
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	25 Jun 2007 03:44:12 PM

In article <f5p8350uj3@drn.newsguy.com> RetroProphet <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> writes:

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?
You continue to present ***** even after refusing
to defend the specific arguments of others who are
pointing out your errors. You are a coward.

You don't even have the balls to stand up for
YOUR OWN WORDS:

You wrote:
===
"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found."
===

Here you have put forth a specific event that
YOU would consider "real evolution," asserting
that this defined event has never occurred.

But what did you do when I pointed out that
that precise event HAS been observed in the case
of the "Nylon bug" that I presented to you several
times in previous exchanges -- and that you have
claimed to have an understanding of?

What you did was to ignore the fact that you are in error
and have thus lost the debate. You are a coward.

Here is the smoking gun -- bang bang your argument
is dead, and by your own definition:

"If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.

By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."

You have just lost the debate definitively."

Is cowardice a virtue in your theology?
Act like a man and face up to the facts.

And let us not overlook another fundamental fallacy
of his argument: that any evolutionary step must
involve the creation of new information, otherwise
it would not be "real evolution".
Aaron seems to be the only leading biologist who
does not understand that shuffling of current
information can also lead to variations, as
well as failing to understand that when the
environment changes, alleles already in the
population which were not advantageous in
the old environment can confer an advantage
once conditions change.
-- cary
.

User: "Aaron Kim"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	28 Jun 2007 10:57:39 AM

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f5p9es$kau$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <f5p8350uj3@drn.newsguy.com> RetroProphet
<RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> writes:

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?
You continue to present ***** even after refusing
to defend the specific arguments of others who are
pointing out your errors. You are a coward.

You don't even have the balls to stand up for
YOUR OWN WORDS:

You wrote:
===
"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found."
===

Here you have put forth a specific event that
YOU would consider "real evolution," asserting
that this defined event has never occurred.

But what did you do when I pointed out that
that precise event HAS been observed in the case
of the "Nylon bug" that I presented to you several
times in previous exchanges -- and that you have
claimed to have an understanding of?

What you did was to ignore the fact that you are in error
and have thus lost the debate. You are a coward.

Here is the smoking gun -- bang bang your argument
is dead, and by your own definition:

"If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.

By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."

You have just lost the debate definitively."

Is cowardice a virtue in your theology?
Act like a man and face up to the facts.

And let us not overlook another fundamental fallacy
of his argument: that any evolutionary step must
involve the creation of new information, otherwise
it would not be "real evolution".

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

Aaron seems to be the only leading biologist who
does not understand that shuffling of current
information can also lead to variations, as
well as failing to understand that when the
environment changes, alleles already in the
population which were not advantageous in
the old environment can confer an advantage
once conditions change.

The shuffling of current information leads to variation that is within the
borders of the genes it inherited. A new species cannot be created. And
another thing. You seem to have popular misconception that just because a
mutation gives an organism a survival advantage that it is proof of
evolution. Take the example of a mutated fish with no eyes. Under normal
conditions, these fishes would not be able to survive. But if they lived in
a cave with no light, then they would be more likely to survive as not
having eyes would prevent infection in any cuts to where the eyes would
normally be. But what happened is that the information for eyes did not
exist, nothing new was created as evolution requires.
I can't help but laugh and notice the lies and constant distortion of the
Darwinists' position. Evolutionists are in complete denial.

-- cary

User: "Ash"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim	28 Jun 2007 01:56:59 PM

Aaron Kim wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f5p9es$kau$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <f5p8350uj3@drn.newsguy.com> RetroProphet
<RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> writes:

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?
You continue to present ***** even after refusing
to defend the specific arguments of others who are
pointing out your errors. You are a coward.

You don't even have the balls to stand up for
YOUR OWN WORDS:

You wrote:
===
"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found."
===

Here you have put forth a specific event that
YOU would consider "real evolution," asserting
that this defined event has never occurred.

But what did you do when I pointed out that
that precise event HAS been observed in the case
of the "Nylon bug" that I presented to you several
times in previous exchanges -- and that you have
claimed to have an understanding of?

What you did was to ignore the fact that you are in error
and have thus lost the debate. You are a coward.

Here is the smoking gun -- bang bang your argument
is dead, and by your own definition:

"If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.

By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."

You have just lost the debate definitively."

Is cowardice a virtue in your theology?
Act like a man and face up to the facts.

And let us not overlook another fundamental fallacy
of his argument: that any evolutionary step must
involve the creation of new information, otherwise
it would not be "real evolution".

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

What do you mean "information" and "uphill"
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	28 Jun 2007 02:39:07 PM

In article <5eidr5F39enspU3@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f5p9es$kau$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <f5p8350uj3@drn.newsguy.com> RetroProphet
<RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> writes:

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?
You continue to present ***** even after refusing
to defend the specific arguments of others who are
pointing out your errors. You are a coward.

You don't even have the balls to stand up for
YOUR OWN WORDS:

You wrote:
===
"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found."
===

Here you have put forth a specific event that
YOU would consider "real evolution," asserting
that this defined event has never occurred.

But what did you do when I pointed out that
that precise event HAS been observed in the case
of the "Nylon bug" that I presented to you several
times in previous exchanges -- and that you have
claimed to have an understanding of?

What you did was to ignore the fact that you are in error
and have thus lost the debate. You are a coward.

Here is the smoking gun -- bang bang your argument
is dead, and by your own definition:

"If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.

By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."

You have just lost the debate definitively."

Is cowardice a virtue in your theology?
Act like a man and face up to the facts.

And let us not overlook another fundamental fallacy
of his argument: that any evolutionary step must
involve the creation of new information, otherwise
it would not be "real evolution".

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

I said "any evolutionary step", not evolution as a whole.
A blind cave animal has lost a function which is both
physiologically expensive and useless in its environment.
This is nonetheless an example of an animal created
by "an evolutionary step".
A tapeworm has lost great amounts of information
compared to its free-living ancestors. Nonetheless
it has evolved to being able to occupy a quite
successful evolutionary niche precisely by these
loses.

The shuffling of current information leads to variation that is within the
borders of the genes it inherited.
A new species cannot be created.

Why not? You don't think that cave crickets are a distinct species
from, say, the wonderfully named Confused cricket?

A new species cannot be created.

Repetition not only does not fix reality, it doesn't even
convince anyone.

And another thing. You seem to have popular misconception that just because a
mutation gives an organism a survival advantage that it is proof of
evolution. Take the example of a mutated fish with no eyes.

Hey, you anticipated my arguments, I see.

Under normal
conditions, these fishes would not be able to survive. But if they lived in
a cave with no light, then they would be more likely to survive as not
having eyes would prevent infection in any cuts to where the eyes would
normally be.
But what happened is that the information for eyes did not
exist, nothing new was created as evolution requires.

Whoa! Hang on! Back up. You are saying that blind cave fish
DO NOT HAVE Pax6 genes?
Really? Man oh man oh man...
Tell you what: I'll bet you, and give you twenty-to-one odds,
that cave fish -- and crickets, and all other manner of blind
cave organisms -- in fact do have a full complement of Pax genes.
And that's as about a safe a bet as I can think of, seeing as
Pax genes are found in just about all metozoans.
[copying]

But what happened is that the information for eyes did not
exist, nothing new was created as evolution requires.

Only you say that "evolution requires new information". New
species can be created by discarding or suppressing
functionality, and you are the only leading biologist I know
of who would argue that these are not new species, or that
the mechanisms which created them are not evolutionary
ones.
The ultimate example of a prfoundly significant evolutionary
event which involves merging of existing information, with
incidental loss of some of it, is to be found in the
mitochondria living in every cell in your body. These
organelles, found in nearly all eukaryotic cells, evolved
from bacteria which merged with existing cells and in the
process gave up some of their functionality in return
for a nice cushy environment. Evidence for this can
be found in such things as the fact that they have
a different genetic code. Notice I did not say
a different genome: they're GENETIC CODE differs from
that which encodes nuclear DNA.
And that exact mechanism -- the merging of two existing genomes
to create a new species, distinct from either of its ancestors,
has been observed, if totally by accident, in the lab. The
incident I have in mind involved a "species" of bacteria
and a species of amoeba which merged, creating an new
species which, unlike either of its contributors, is incapable
of surviving without both genomes. You can read about it in Lynn
Marguis "Microcosmos" or her "Acquiring Genomes". Or
if you wish, I'll dig up some online references.
-- cary
.

User: "RetroProphet"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	28 Jun 2007 02:05:59 PM

In article <5eidr5F39enspU3@mid.individual.net>, Aaron Kim says...

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f5p9es$kau$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <f5p8350uj3@drn.newsguy.com> RetroProphet
<RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> writes:

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?
You continue to present ***** even after refusing
to defend the specific arguments of others who are
pointing out your errors. You are a coward.

You don't even have the balls to stand up for
YOUR OWN WORDS:

You wrote:
===
"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found."
===

Here you have put forth a specific event that
YOU would consider "real evolution," asserting
that this defined event has never occurred.

But what did you do when I pointed out that
that precise event HAS been observed in the case
of the "Nylon bug" that I presented to you several
times in previous exchanges -- and that you have
claimed to have an understanding of?

What you did was to ignore the fact that you are in error
and have thus lost the debate. You are a coward.

Here is the smoking gun -- bang bang your argument
is dead, and by your own definition:

"If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.

By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."

You have just lost the debate definitively."

Is cowardice a virtue in your theology?
Act like a man and face up to the facts.

And let us not overlook another fundamental fallacy
of his argument: that any evolutionary step must
involve the creation of new information, otherwise
it would not be "real evolution".

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction
of new information that did not exist before.

According to YOUR WORDS, Aaron, "real evolution" takes place
with "the production of new functionally complex information,
such as a new enzyme."
This is what occurred in the case of the "Nylon Bug."
Why are you persisting in playing games with your abstract
"information" argument while your specific mechanism
argument is right there above smoldering in ruins?
You are once again demostrating your cowardice
by not facing this like a man.
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not AnEvolutionary "Magic Wand")	29 Jun 2007 07:08:29 AM

[snips]
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:57:39 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

"Uphill" is meaningless. As to the other, since new information is
readily available via mutation and similar means, there's simply no
problem.

The shuffling of current information leads to variation that is within
the borders of the genes it inherited.

No kidding.

A new species cannot be created.

Not by shuffling existing genes, presumably. However, as noted -
repeatedly - new information is readily available, so it's simply not an
issue.

And another thing. You seem to have popular misconception that just
because a mutation gives an organism a survival advantage that it is
proof of evolution.

Evolution deals in populations, not individuals. What the organism gained
or lost is irrelevant to evolution.

Take the example of a mutated fish with no eyes.
Under normal conditions, these fishes would not be able to survive. But
if they lived in a cave with no light, then they would be more likely to
survive as not having eyes would prevent infection in any cuts to where
the eyes would normally be. But what happened is that the information
for eyes did not exist, nothing new was created as evolution requires.

New, sightless species are descended from the parent population. Not sure
how you figure "new species" doesn't involve something "new".

I can't help but laugh and notice the lies and constant distortion of
the Darwinists' position.

Yet you keep lying and distorting... such as by referring to it as
"Darwinism" rather than the proper term, which I'm sure you know, but are
simply too dishonest to use properly.
--
Sorry, but science of today is a fraud. - Ra-ul Newt-n
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	29 Jun 2007 07:21:03 PM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:08:29 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9d0fl4-eu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>

[snips]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:57:39 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

"Uphill" is meaningless.

Not to Aawrong Kim, son of Art.
He spends all day pushing ***** uphill.
:
--
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	29 Jun 2007 08:05:31 PM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:51:03 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:08:29 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9d0fl4-eu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>

[snips]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:57:39 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

"Uphill" is meaningless.

Not to Aawrong Kim, son of Art.
He spends all day pushing ***** uphill.

And it rolls downhill to cover him in it, overnight.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	30 Jun 2007 01:12:38 AM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:05:31 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <q1bb8316ijnltkujpt94fesvuenm6qlb90@4ax.com>

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:51:03 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:08:29 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9d0fl4-eu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>

[snips]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:57:39 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

"Uphill" is meaningless.

Not to Aawrong Kim, son of Art.
He spends all day pushing ***** uphill.

And it rolls downhill to cover him in it, overnight.

Not Sisyphus, but Syphilis.
--
.

User: "James Norris"
Title: Design for a Conscious Mechanoid	30 Jun 2007 04:41:18 AM

On Jun 30, 7:12?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:05:31 -0400, Christopher A.Lee<c...@optonline.net> wrote:

- Refer: <q1bb8316ijnltkujpt94fesvuenm6ql...@4ax.com>

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:51:03 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:08:29 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9d0fl4-eu1....@spanky.localhost.net>

[snips]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:57:39 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

"Uphill" is meaningless.

Not to Aawrong Kim, son of Art.
He spends all day pushing ***** uphill.

And it rolls downhill to cover him in it, overnight.

Not Sisyphus, but Syphilis.

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:

Design for a Conscious Mechanoid

[Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious'
posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is
conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a
problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a
dictionary.]

Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots.
Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at
random (twigs, elastic bands, teadcups, wheels, orange peel etc), and
incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original
component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact
with the environment, and watch what happens.

Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course.
They might replace one of their vital components (the computer
program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately
stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a
while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original
structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed
mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore
robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which
was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are
interested in.

The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all
their constituent components, including their original computer
hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like
ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so
they might be conscious, as we are.

A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this
could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the
elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could
easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought.
For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is
the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters
producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left
them long enough, they would eventually do it!

Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of
determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the
design above, the construction allows the possibility that
consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non-
conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a
wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands
held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality
contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged
elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment
apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up.
Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now
conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than
it was to begin with.

James Norris

I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist
"reasoning"?

No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor
computer-based.

I especially liked the bit:

"A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and
this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the
elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could
easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought."

You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on
which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether
one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the
experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could
anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave.

The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how
the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism.
I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human
beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my
suggestion is so laughable.

Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective
experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything
or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist
perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether
something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a
few of them here are having problems coming to terms with.

I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a
problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but
anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't.

Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and
an absolute nutter.

An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that
they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose.

The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical
example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being
might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in
reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million
typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare
would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the
salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it
amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and
memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool.

The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something
was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it
was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was
the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour
expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have
been influenced by their existance).

You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts.
The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about
consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces
behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding
of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness,
which you should look into as they might help you express your
argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The
'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in
the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various
other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed
behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries
to satisfy.

Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes
played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar
thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as
I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the
concept, or have you got competition?

No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the
example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity
is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in
the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary
complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic
bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the
theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from
millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you
think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth
considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever
- perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting
in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to
provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be
rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious
awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you
suggest?

Discuss.
.

User: "Don Martin"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	30 Jun 2007 08:05:29 AM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:51:03 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:08:29 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9d0fl4-eu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>

[snips]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:57:39 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

"Uphill" is meaningless.

Not to Aawrong Kim, son of Art.
He spends all day pushing ***** uphill.

Think of him as an unusually malodorous Sisyphus.
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.

User: "James Norris"
Title: Design for a Conscious Mechanoid	30 Jun 2007 07:30:56 AM

On Jun 30, 2:05?pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:51:03 +0930, Michael Gray

<mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:08:29 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9d0fl4-eu1....@spanky.localhost.net>

[snips]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:57:39 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

"Uphill" is meaningless.

Not to Aawrong Kim, son of Art.
He spends all day pushing ***** uphill.

Think of him as an unusually malodorous Sisyphus.

Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:

Design for a Conscious Mechanoid

Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots.
Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at
random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and
incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original
component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact
with the environment, and watch what happens.

James Norris

I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist
"reasoning"?

No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor
computer-based.

I especially liked the bit:

I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a
problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but
anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't.

Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and
an absolute nutter.

An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that
they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose.

Discuss.
Jim
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	30 Jun 2007 06:07:17 PM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:05:29 -0500, Don Martin
<drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote:
- Refer: <46lc831airh8qd4pvf3hr0idhbveodr7hp@4ax.com>

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:51:03 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:08:29 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9d0fl4-eu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>

[snips]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:57:39 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

No, you're wrong. Evolution does require an uphill direction of new
information that did not exist before.

"Uphill" is meaningless.

Not to Aawrong Kim, son of Art.
He spends all day pushing ***** uphill.

Think of him as an unusually malodorous Sisyphus.

Oh, I do.
I do.
--
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	25 Jun 2007 09:19:32 PM

On 25 Jun 2007 13:20:53 -0700, RetroProphet
<RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
- Refer: <f5p8350uj3@drn.newsguy.com>

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.
All mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?

Yes, very plainly.

Or just a dishonest debater?

Yes.

You are a coward.

Guilty.
--
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not AnEvolutionary "Magic Wand")	25 Jun 2007 05:56:00 PM

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:20:53 -0700, RetroProphet wrote:

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All
mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?

Or?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: The Cowardice of Aaron Kim (was: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand")	25 Jun 2007 09:19:59 PM

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:56:00 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
- Refer: <UJydnXDRS6Od1R3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com>

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:20:53 -0700, RetroProphet wrote:

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All
mutations have proved to be harmful.

Are you brain-damaged, Aaron?
Or just a dishonest debater?

Or?

And.
--
.

User: "TheLetterK"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 07:51:53 PM

Aaron Kim wrote:

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA
molecule,

mu·ta·tion /myuˈteɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[myoo-tey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Biology.
a. a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable
characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
b. an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure.

which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism
and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or
replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or
chemical action.

Or transcription errors within the cell.

Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the
nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations.

Changing the location of those nucleotides would be changing the meaning
of the gene. E.G transposing the last two states of 00110101 would
change it from five to six.

Most of the
time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot
repair them.

Thus, the mutated cell dies. Of course, we only need to worry about
mutations in haploid cells--sperm and egg cells...

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect
form.

The only people that claim it does are creationists looking for a straw
man. Evolution is not a process that leads to perfection, it's a process
that leads to suitability for a particular environment/niche.

The direct effect of mutations is harmful.

Did you know that a mutation very far back in human genetic history lead
to two different alleles for ear wax? Humans, from all over the world,
have one of two different kinds of ear wax--the grey flaky kind, and the
green gunky kind. As far as anyone can tell, this mutation has no
measurable impact on the suitability of individuals for their environment.
Also note that not all 'harmful' mutations are harmful in all
environments. The traditional example of this would probably be the
sickle-cell trait, which is a disadvantage in most areas, but an extreme
selective advantage in regions where malaria is a problem (because being
heterozygous for the sickle-cell trait confers a resistance to malaria).

The changes effected by
mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima,
Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature.

This is simply not true.

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure,
and random effects can only damage it.

Random changes in junk DNA have no impact whatsoever. Even then, random
changes in other genes can have negelgable or even beneficial effects
(depending on the environment). And it's not like severely harmful
mutations are going to be carried down to future generations, since the
organism will probably die as a result of it.

Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

Using a very loose definition of "biologist". On his site, he mentions
that he got a "B.A in bible", with a minor in biology. From Bob Jones
University, no less. Not exactly a reliable and unbiased authority on
the matter, hmm?

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature.

Not particularly. Besides, they don't have to be incredibly common to
drive evolution.

Secondly, most
mutations are harmful since they are random,

Thus reducing the selective advantage of organisms with such harmful
mutations--as a result, they do not pass these severely harmful
mutations on to successive generations. Beneficial or neutral mutations,
on the other hand...

rather than orderly changes
in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system
will be for the worse, not for the better.

That is absolutely not true.

For example, if an earthquake
were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would
be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all
probability, would not be an improvement.19

However, randomly replacing ten of the desk chairs in the building with
ten new chairs, chosen at random from an office furniture catalog, might
well improve the comfort (and productivity) of at least some of the
workers within the building (to further extend the metaphor, more
productive workers are more likely to advance within the company, and
make such changes throughout the business.). Mutations are not
equivalent to violently shaking the foundations of a tall building,
they're equivalent to replacing a bit of office furniture, or randomly
selecting the color of the paint on the walls of one of the offices.

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria. That certainly is a useful (and
increasingly common) mutation for the bacteria in question, though
perhaps not for humans. Another common example would be Galapagos
finches and their varying beak lengths.

All
mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren
Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic
Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate
mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the
Second World War:

Warren Weaver is a mathematician and civil engineer, not a biologist or
geneticist.

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known
mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the
process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of
life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20

This seems like an absurdly stupid statement for anyone who understands
that evolution occurs across generations, not the lifespan of
individuals. Severely harmful mutations will prevent the organism from
passing on the mutated gene, and thus the ratio of harmful:adaptive
mutations is completely irrelevant.

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in
failure.

Absolutely untrue. There have been numerous examples fo beneficial
mutations, even over the last hundred years or so. We've directly
observed them in action.

For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to
produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very
rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon
generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever
observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

Gordon Rattray Taylor was a social commentator and journalist, not a
geneticist. Can you cite *anyone* who actually has formal education in
this field?

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists
have sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But
these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures.

Which is statistically improbable. It's more likely that this is simply
what was noticed. Or he's lying/misinterpreting results. You don't
mention which experiments he is citing, so there's no much more that can
be said on the matter.

The
left picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on
the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the
result of mutation.

Of *a* mutation. Could it be that he... picked that example because of
his particular bias?

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists
have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round
the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they
have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21

I'd like to see the studies he is citing.

Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the
experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected
generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light,
dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations,
practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced.

Didn't the people you were citing above comment on how all mutations
were harmful? Apparently there are enough trivial mutations out of
"practically all" the mutations observed to warrant mention by such an
inherently biased author. And what about the others? We can infer that
at least *some* of the mutations observed were beneficial, since only
"practically" all were trivial or harmful.

Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could
have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants
die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22

Ahh yes, now we get to the crux of the matter. At least he has the
intellectual honesty to note that these harmful mutations would be
eliminated from the gene pool. Even if he didn't phrase it in quite that
way.

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in
human beings have had deleterious results.

That is simply not true. Most mutations either don't show up (mutations
in junk DNA) or are fairly trivial (like the various genes for hair
color, or the aforementioned earwax allele), and the mutations that are
incredibly harmful do not get passed down in nature, since the organism
probably won't survive or manage to successfully breed.

All mutations that take place
in humans result in physical deformities,

Not true. Also, not all physical deformities are harmful in all
environments and situations.

in infirmities such as
mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer.

Or trivial things, like a different sort of ear-wax, or heterochromatic
eye-color.

Needless to say,
a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary
mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted
to survive.

That is a straw man argument, and doesn't even logically follow. Such
individuals are not going to be particularly successful. As we see with
the various heritable diseases, that there are some harmful alleles that
persist, but they are not very common.
<rest of the drivel snipped>
.

User: "RetroProphet"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 08:30:18 PM

Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

His science credentials are so weak that doesn't even qualify
for professional membership in The Creation Research Society,
which he puffs on his website.
.

User: "Ash"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 03:58:33 PM

Aaron Kim wrote:

Have you ever heard of the genetic code?
DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is then translated into protein. A
change in the DNA sequence can (and does) cause a change in the protein
sequence.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 01:14:25 PM

In article <5eaecbF37fbcgU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

The average rate of copying errors in vitro is about 1 in 100.
The average rate errors in vivo is about one in one million.
Obviously the cell can and does repair 99.99% of copying errors.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The
direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can
only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and
Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature.

Point mutations can be either harmful, neutral, or beneficial.
And in fact I have in the past presented you with three examples
of point mutations which conferred a distinct advantage on those
organisms which received the mutation. And you have failed
to respond to any of the three examples.
Further, "stuttering" often occurs during copying, two or more
copies of the same gene being made. So when one of the two -- or
more, often many more -- copies undergoes mutation, the original
information is still preserved, unaltered.
And yet further, mutation is not the only process providing
variations for natural selection to work on. Other
mechanisms range all the way from chromosomal rearrangemnt
to wholesale genomic acquisition, as described by Lynn Margulis
and others.
May we rest assured that you will ignore this post as well?
-- cary
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 06:48:12 PM

In article <5eaecbF37fbcgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote:

Nonsense. Learn some biology:
http://makingthemodernworld.org/learning_modules/biology/01.TU.03/?sectio
n=7
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutation_and_Evo
lution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_3.htm
And many more.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be