Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rocky2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!dross From: dross@rocky2.UUCP (David Ross) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 2) Message-ID: <110@rocky2.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 01:00:16 EST Article-I.D.: rocky2.110 Posted: Thu Apr 11 01:00:16 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 06:34:57 EST References: <329@iham1.UUCP> Organization: Rockefeller Univ., N.Y.C. 10021 Lines: 153 In article <329@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP gives several citations (mostly outdated references from the 1950's) purporting to show that mutations cannot occur at a sufficient rate to create new species, and that most mutations are deletorious. If creationists have to restrict scientific knowledge to the state it was in thirty years ago to prove their case, they've got a long way to go. The specific problems with the "evidence" presented are as follows: > 3. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited [a]. > > a) N. Heribert Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE > ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. > 1144-1147. Agreed. But current evolutionary theory already says this, (and has for a long time), so how does this contradict evolution? > 4. Natural selection cannot produce NEW genes; it only > SELECTS among preexisting characteristics. This is not quite accurate. Natural selection selects genes, not characteristics (although in some instances it may act on more than one gene.) Secondly, gene frequencies in a population can be influenced by migration pressure as well as by natural selection. > 5. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new > genetic material becomes available for evolution [a,b]. > Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism > in its natural environment. In addition, almost all > (perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful [c]; many > are lethal [d-i]. This just is not true! Mutation is a major mechanism by which genetic variability is produced, but it is *not* the only one. Other proposed mechanisms include: 1) Genome rearrangements - This has been demonstrated convincingly in the case of immunoglobulins. 2) Transposable elements - Agents such as Tn elements and phage mu have been long known to produce genotypic and phenotypic changes in bacteria by transposing from one site to another. It's been known for almost forty years that transposable elements are active in higher organisms. Barbara McClintock was the first to show this, using corn as a model system; it's now thought that the repetitive sequences found in all eukaryotic DNA may represent transposable elements. 3) Viral transduction - It was shown several years ago that retroviruses have picked up cellular DNA; this represents an obvious mechanism for introducing new genes into an organism.Again, there are solid precedents for this in bacteria. 4) The existence of intervening sequences in eukaryotic DNA has led to the suggestion that one mechanism of evolutionary change may be shuffling of coding sequences for protein domains to produce new proteins Finally, the argument that all mutations must be deletorious is not and cannot be a priori true. Bacterial and viral mutations, for example, often are advantageous. (Cf. drug resistance). Mutations can be advantageous, neutral or disadvantageous. (See Genetics, 2nd. ed. Ursula Goodenough, [New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston], 1978, p. 757.) In addition, genes do not exist in isolation to produce an organism, but rather cooperate with the environment to produce a phenotype. A gene that was previously deletorious may prove beneficial if the environment should change. The best example of this in humans is the gene for hemoglobin S, found in sickle cell trait and sickle cell anemia. In the presence of malaria, individuals carrying one (and only one) copy of the gene have a selective advantage. In the absence of malaria, the gene is deletorious. > a) ''Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to > mutation.'' [Ernst Mayr, as contained in Paul S. > Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, editors, MATHEMATICAL > CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF > EVOLUTION, Proceedings of a symposium held at the > Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and > 26, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, > 1967), p. 50.] > b) ''Although mutation is the ultimate source of all > genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, > ....'' [Francisco J. Ayala, ''The Mechanism of > Evolution,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 1978, p. > 63.] > c) ''Mutations are more than just sudden changes in > heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best > of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.'' > [C. P. Martin, (McGill University) ''A Non-Geneticist > Looks at Evolution,'' AMERICAN SCIENTIST, January > 1953, p. 102.] > d) ''[although mutations have produced some desirable > breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to > be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, > impair the fertility and viability of the affected > organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of > known mutant types one can be found which is superior > to the wild type in its normal environment, only very > few can be named which are superior to the wild type > in a strange environment.'' [C. P. Martin, p. 100.] > ''Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the > mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known > mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few > remaining ones are highly suspect.'' [C. P. Martin, p. > 103.] > e) ''The process of mutation is the only source of the > raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of > evolution.... The mutants which arise are, with rare > exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in > the environments which the species normally > encounters.'' [Theodosius Dobzhansky, ''On Methods of > Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,'' AMERICAN > SCIENTIST, Winter, December 1957, p. 385.] > f) ''If we say that it is only by chance that they > [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too > leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, > or lethal.'' [W. R. Thompson, ''Introduction to the > ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles Darwin; Everyman No. > 811 Library (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956 > reprint of 1928 edition), p. 10.] > g) ''...we could still be quite sure on theoretical > grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For > a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, > reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random > change in the highly integrated system of chemical > processes which constitute life is almost certain to > impair it--just as a random interchange of connections > in a television set is not likely to improve the > picture.'' [James F. Crow, (Professor of Genetics, > University of Wisconsin) ''Genetic Effects of > Radiation,'' BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, > Vol.14, 1958, pp. 19-20.] > h) ''The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a > tendency towards degeneration.'' [Dr. Sewall Wright, > THE NEW SYSTEMATICS (Clarendon Press), p. 174.] > i) In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a > new organ, Koestler says that ''Each mutation > occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be > combined with the others. They are all interdependent. > The doctrine that their coming together was due to a > series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to > common sense but to the basic principles of scientific > explanation.'' [Arthur Koestler, THE GHOST IN THE > MACHINE (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 129]. What I find amazing is quoting references like these, some of them more than fifty years out of date, in a feeble effort to try and build up creationism by knocking down evolution. It doesn't work like that. You use the most recent evidence to support your case, not the oldest. David Ross @NYU Medical Center {allegra, seismo, ihnp4}!cmcl2!rocky2