the Theory of Evolution as Taught in Schools

[alphaparticle]

yes, most mutations are either neutral, in that there is no obvious phenotype associated with them, or deleterious.  But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information in a way that is at least not harmful and very rarely  helpful to change genetic statistics to potentially proliferate that.

 

This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.   
Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8

 

This quote requires more context to be understandable.

 

 

 

Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it.
Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.168

Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions. There is no argument here.

 

 

 

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.  
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

Yes. Most mutations are not helpful. That's a trivially known fact here.

[Enoch2021]

yes, most mutations are either neutral, in that there is no obvious phenotype associated with them, or deleterious.  But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information in a way that is at least not harmful and very rarely  helpful to change genetic statistics to potentially proliferate that.

 

This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.   

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8

 

This quote requires more context to be understandable.

 

 

 

Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it.

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.168

Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions. There is no argument here.

 

 

 

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.  

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

Yes. Most mutations are not helpful. That's a trivially known fact here.

 

How in the world do you pull the individual quotes out of a reply as you did and place them in one reply? LOL  For now, I'll just place yours in Green.

 

"But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information"

 

This is clearly not the case.  See: John Sanford. ...."The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

 

"Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions"

 

Sir, that's why they're CITED.  And this default Quote Mining.... it's sure better than having an Unsupported Conjecture free for all.  Have you ever written a Science Research Paper or any research paper for that matter?  Now obviously, using this medium, It would be quite impractical to say the least to provide a detailed rebuttal to each of your assertions.  So what I do is have quotes or snippets from the books/articles that I've read that directly refute or support claims.

 

Case in point, if you would like to discover the absolute IMPOSSIBLE concept of MUTATIONS with New Information or evolution....Think on this for a moment then Pull up the CITED Reference just below it

 

"Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let’s suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty."

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

Montañez, G.; Marks R.; Fernandez, J. & Sanford, J. (2013). Multiple overlapping genetic codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation, In: Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 139-167).

[alphaparticle]

 

yes, most mutations are either neutral, in that there is no obvious phenotype associated with them, or deleterious.  But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information in a way that is at least not harmful and very rarely  helpful to change genetic statistics to potentially proliferate that.

 

This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.   

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8

 

This quote requires more context to be understandable.

 

 

 

Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it.

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.168

Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions. There is no argument here.

 

 

 

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.  

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

Yes. Most mutations are not helpful. That's a trivially known fact here.

 

How in the world do you pull the individual quotes out of a reply as you did and place them in one reply? LOL  For now, I'll just place yours in Green.

 

"But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information"

 

This is clearly not the case.  See: John Sanford. ...."The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

 

"Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions"

 

Sir, that's why they're CITED.  And this default Quote Mining.... it's sure better than having an Unsupported Conjecture free for all.  Have you ever written a Science Research Paper or any research paper for that matter?  Now obviously, using this medium, It would be quite impractical to say the least to provide a detailed rebuttal to each of your assertions.  So what I do is have quotes or snippets from the books/articles that I've read that directly refute or support claims.

 

Case in point, if you would like to discover the absolute IMPOSSIBLE concept of MUTATIONS with New Information or evolution....Think on this for a moment then Pull up the CITED Reference just below it

 

"Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let’s suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty."

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

Montañez, G.; Marks R.; Fernandez, J. & Sanford, J. (2013). Multiple overlapping genetic codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation, In: Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 139-167).

 

I'm fully familiar with how to write scientific papers.

 

I'm not interested in half baked ideas that run via snippets of quotes from larger arguments. That is not something I am interested in. If you want to pick one idea, and give me a *full argument*, it can be the full line of reasoning one of these guys goes through, fine, that might be interesting. But this sort of exchange, random out of context quotes, is not useful to me in the least. You have determined it's impossible for new genetic structures to come about via mutation, transcription error, or other sources (a hint here, viruses?)? because on the face of it that claim is absurd.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

yes, most mutations are either neutral, in that there is no obvious phenotype associated with them, or deleterious.  But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information in a way that is at least not harmful and very rarely  helpful to change genetic statistics to potentially proliferate that.

 

This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.   

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8

 

This quote requires more context to be understandable.

 

 

 

Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it.

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.168

Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions. There is no argument here.

 

 

 

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.  

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

Yes. Most mutations are not helpful. That's a trivially known fact here.

 

How in the world do you pull the individual quotes out of a reply as you did and place them in one reply? LOL  For now, I'll just place yours in Green.

 

"But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information"

 

This is clearly not the case.  See: John Sanford. ...."The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

 

"Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions"

 

Sir, that's why they're CITED.  And this default Quote Mining.... it's sure better than having an Unsupported Conjecture free for all.  Have you ever written a Science Research Paper or any research paper for that matter?  Now obviously, using this medium, It would be quite impractical to say the least to provide a detailed rebuttal to each of your assertions.  So what I do is have quotes or snippets from the books/articles that I've read that directly refute or support claims.

 

Case in point, if you would like to discover the absolute IMPOSSIBLE concept of MUTATIONS with New Information or evolution....Think on this for a moment then Pull up the CITED Reference just below it

 

"Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let’s suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty."

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

Montañez, G.; Marks R.; Fernandez, J. & Sanford, J. (2013). Multiple overlapping genetic codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation, In: Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 139-167).

 

I'm fully familiar with how to write scientific papers.

 

I'm not interested in half baked ideas that run via snippets of quotes from larger arguments. That is not something I am interested in. If you want to pick one idea, and give me a *full argument*, it can be the full line of reasoning one of these guys goes through, fine, that might be interesting. But this sort of exchange, random out of context quotes, is not useful to me in the least. You have determined it's impossible for new genetic structures to come about via mutation, transcription error, or other sources (a hint here, viruses?)? because on the face of it that claim is absurd.

 

 

"But this sort of exchange, random out of context quotes"

 

That's a baseless assertion sir, Out of Context.....exactly where?  Random...I don't think so.  These are all on point and exactly dealing with the subject matter @ hand from Subject Matter Experts.

 

"You have determined it's impossible for new genetic structures to come about via mutation"

 

No, I haven't.... the experts on the specific matter have, as I've clearly shown.  Its like a software program.... you're not getting Windows 98 no matter how many spelling errors (Mutations) you get out of Turbo Tax.  The code is not apart of the menu.

 

For example....

 

“The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.”

Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p. 134

 

However, they have been successful with mutations of the Homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals and insects (Drosophila above) with radiation and poisons.  Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow.  But with all of these structures there is no new information!  Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. Most Importantly, the extra appendages are NON-FUNCTIONING (No intra-muscular tissue, Nerve tissue, ect). Which is quite illuminating when looking @ the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained aspect of DNA that Dr. Sanford was alluding to.   

 

 

"or other sources (a hint here, viruses?)"

 

What is the specific issue?

 

"because on the face of it that claim is absurd."

 

Based on.....?

[alphaparticle]

“The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.”

Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p. 134

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise.

 

 

 

However, they have been successful with mutations of the Homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals and insects (Drosophila above) with radiation and poisons.  Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow.  But with all of these structures there is no new information!  Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. Most Importantly, the extra appendages are NON-FUNCTIONING (No intra-muscular tissue, Nerve tissue, ect). Which is quite illuminating when looking @ the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained aspect of DNA that Dr. Sanford was alluding to.   

 

Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now.

[Guest]

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

 

~

 

....Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful....

 

~

 

I Know Of Only One Way Genetic Material Ever Becomes Alive

 

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:62-63

 

And Science Will Never Be Able

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Psalms 29:16

 

To Peer Review

 

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

 

Jesus

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

~

 

Be Blessed

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

 

Beloved Of The KING

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Enoch2021]

 

“The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.”

Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p. 134

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise.

 

 

 

However, they have been successful with mutations of the Homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals and insects (Drosophila above) with radiation and poisons.  Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow.  But with all of these structures there is no new information!  Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. Most Importantly, the extra appendages are NON-FUNCTIONING (No intra-muscular tissue, Nerve tissue, ect). Which is quite illuminating when looking @ the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained aspect of DNA that Dr. Sanford was alluding to.   

 

Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now.

 

 

"Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise."

 

Irrelevant??  We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) .  Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant?

 

"Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now."

 

There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors).  Lets try it this way...

In this sentence:  I Love Ice Cream.  Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation:  I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

“The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.”

Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p. 134

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise.

 

 

 

However, they have been successful with mutations of the Homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals and insects (Drosophila above) with radiation and poisons.  Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow.  But with all of these structures there is no new information!  Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. Most Importantly, the extra appendages are NON-FUNCTIONING (No intra-muscular tissue, Nerve tissue, ect). Which is quite illuminating when looking @ the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained aspect of DNA that Dr. Sanford was alluding to.   

 

Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now.

 

 

"Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise."

 

Irrelevant??  We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) .  Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant?

 

"Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now."

 

There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors).  Lets try it this way...

In this sentence:  I Love Ice Cream.  Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation:  I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled?

 

Even if it's 'bad' genetic material, the fact that mutations, transcription errors, viruses, etc, can proliferate it is all that is needed to start to model how the statistics of genetic material in the population might start to change, and that is fundamentally what evolution is about.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

“The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.”

Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p. 134

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise.

 

 

 

However, they have been successful with mutations of the Homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals and insects (Drosophila above) with radiation and poisons.  Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow.  But with all of these structures there is no new information!  Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. Most Importantly, the extra appendages are NON-FUNCTIONING (No intra-muscular tissue, Nerve tissue, ect). Which is quite illuminating when looking @ the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained aspect of DNA that Dr. Sanford was alluding to.   

 

Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now.

 

 

"Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise."

 

Irrelevant??  We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) .  Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant?

 

"Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now."

 

There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors).  Lets try it this way...

In this sentence:  I Love Ice Cream.  Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation:  I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled?

 

Even if it's 'bad' genetic material, the fact that mutations, transcription errors, viruses, etc, can proliferate it is all that is needed to start to model how the statistics of genetic material in the population might start to change, and that is fundamentally what evolution is about.

 

 

Sir, It's not only that deleterious Mutations (your "bad" genetic material) overwhelm the miniscule "Beneficial" Mutations by orders of magnitude; the INFORMATION decreases and is degenerate; thus, the name MUTATIONS.  It appears the evolution train is humming; unfortunately (for evolutionists), it's heading the wrong direction.  May I quote (sorry, not your favorite) .....

 

'This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-darwinian theory. The bottom line is that darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

“The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.”

Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p. 134

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise.

 

 

 

However, they have been successful with mutations of the Homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals and insects (Drosophila above) with radiation and poisons.  Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow.  But with all of these structures there is no new information!  Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. Most Importantly, the extra appendages are NON-FUNCTIONING (No intra-muscular tissue, Nerve tissue, ect). Which is quite illuminating when looking @ the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained aspect of DNA that Dr. Sanford was alluding to.   

 

Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now.

 

 

"Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise."

 

Irrelevant??  We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) .  Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant?

 

"Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now."

 

There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors).  Lets try it this way...

In this sentence:  I Love Ice Cream.  Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation:  I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled?

 

Even if it's 'bad' genetic material, the fact that mutations, transcription errors, viruses, etc, can proliferate it is all that is needed to start to model how the statistics of genetic material in the population might start to change, and that is fundamentally what evolution is about.

 

 

Sir, It's not only that deleterious Mutations (your "bad" genetic material) overwhelm the miniscule "Beneficial" Mutations by orders of magnitude; the INFORMATION decreases and is degenerate; thus, the name MUTATIONS.  It appears the evolution train is humming; unfortunately (for evolutionists), it's heading the wrong direction.  May I quote (sorry, not your favorite) .....

 

'This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-darwinian theory. The bottom line is that darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

The ones that cause horrible mutations aren't able to compete and disappear in the population. The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate.