Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 3) Message-ID: <460@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 13:25:33 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.460 Posted: Thu Apr 11 13:25:33 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 03:20:06 EST References: <330@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Distribution: net Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 89 Summary: In article <330@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes: > 6. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having > both greater complexity and greater viability [a,b] than > any of its ancestors [c-f]. Single mutations seldom would cause a new species to develop. However... Autopolyploidy in plants is a standard trick of plant breeders to develop more vigorous plants by doubling or tripling their chromosome numbers. Several species of plants are believed to have arisen naturally by this method. I'd say that more chromosomes satisfies the greater complexity clause. The greater viability clause is meaningless: how can you determine which of two naturally occurring species is more "viable"? Each is able to outcompete the other in its natural habitat. > a) ''Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the > business of producing new structures for selection to > work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed > emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form > is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be > visible today, occurring in organisms at various > stages up to integration of a functional new system, > but we don't see them: there is no sign at all of this > kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor > controlled experiment has shown natural selection > manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, > hormone, enzyme system or organ.'' [Michael Pitman, > ADAM AND EVOLUTION (London: Rider, 1984), pp. 67-68.] Duplicated chromosomes would count as new structures, since each copy is then free to mutate in different directions. There are quite a few candidates for nascent organs (assuming you are referring to things we can see today, rather than "evolution in one year right under my nose".) Two examples I'm well familiar with are the development of claws in the family Dryinidae (some wasps parasitic on Homoptera) from the first tarsal segment, and the development of claws from a spur of the femur of mites parasitic in the gills of Hermit Crabs (Ewingidae, recently placed in the family Glycyphagidae.) > b) ''There is no single instance where it can be > maintained that any of the mutants studied has a > higher vitality than the mother species.'' [N. > Heribert Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE > ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. > 1212.] And how would you measure this vitality? Autopolyploidy often produces plants that are described as more vigorous under some growing conditions. > c) Pierre-Paul Grasse, EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS (New > York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88. What did he say? > d) ''It is good to keep in mind...that nobody has ever > succeeded in producing even one new species by the > accumulation of micromutations.'' [Richard > Goldschmidt, THE MATERIAL BASIS OF EVOLUTION (Yale > University Press). ] Actually, this is not in the least true if you use standards of reproductive isolation. New "species" of Drosophila have been produced which are incapable of interbreeding with the old. I've read reports of species changing similarly in the wild. We may be observing evolution in action there. > e) ''If one allows the unquestionable largest > experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear > and incontrovertible answer to the question about the > significance of mutations for the formation of species > and evolution. They disappear under the competitive > conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst > in a breeze.'' [N. Heribert Nilsson, p. 174.] On what basis does Nilsson generalize from "many" to "all"? > f) ''If life really depends on each gene being as unique > as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come > into being by chance mutations.'' [Frank B. Salisbury, > (Plant Science Department, Utah State University), > ''Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,'' > NATURE, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.] I think I'll check this one out tonight in the library. This might be a creationist letter to the editor, or it might be out of context. I'll let you know. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh