Check users, creationist, Administrators
22,649
edits
Mutation: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
→New information
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
Evolutionists contend that mutation, acted upon by [[natural selection]] is the mechanism for evolutionary advancement. There are many examples put forward by evolutionary biologists that attempt to show how new genes have been introduced into the genome of an [[organism]]. However, in all documented cases of muational change in an organism it can be determined to be merely built-in plasticity or variation within the original [[created kind]] or [[speciation]]. Merely shuffling of already existing genes becomes woefully inadequate if the observational science is followed. | Evolutionists contend that mutation, acted upon by [[natural selection]] is the mechanism for evolutionary advancement. There are many examples put forward by evolutionary biologists that attempt to show how new genes have been introduced into the genome of an [[organism]]. However, in all documented cases of muational change in an organism it can be determined to be merely built-in plasticity or variation within the original [[created kind]] or [[speciation]]. Merely shuffling of already existing genes becomes woefully inadequate if the observational science is followed. | ||
Despite the few examples of beneficial genetic mutations it is unrealistic to assume that this information produced through changing already existing DNA would then be acted on again by | Despite the few examples of beneficial genetic mutations it is unrealistic to assume that this information produced through changing already existing DNA would then be acted on again many more times by other related mutations to build radically different and complex structures than what was there previously. This is to say that mutations are not a reasonable means of producing cascading morphological change from one kind of animal to another but merely speciation. | ||
Obviously mutations can indeed cause dramatic phenotype change from environmental pressures. Many experiments have been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila) where poisons and radiation induced mutations. However, the problem is that they are always deleterious. The Drosophila experiments showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but these were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Therefore, these flies would be eliminated by natural selection. Even in the case of mutations which can change the amount of DNA possessed by an organism, an increase in the amount of DNA does not result in increased function. Biophysicist Dr. [[Lee Spetner]] in his book, ''[http://store.nwcreation.net/notbychshmot.html Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution]'', analyzed examples of mutational changes that evolutionists claimed were increases in information, and demonstrated that they were actually examples of loss of specificity, meaning loss of information. | Obviously mutations can indeed cause dramatic phenotype change from environmental pressures. Many experiments have been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila) where poisons and radiation induced mutations. However, the problem is that they are always deleterious. The Drosophila experiments showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but these were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Therefore, these flies would be eliminated by natural selection. Even in the case of mutations which can change the amount of DNA possessed by an organism, an increase in the amount of DNA does not result in increased function. Biophysicist Dr. [[Lee Spetner]] in his book, ''[http://store.nwcreation.net/notbychshmot.html Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution]'', analyzed examples of mutational changes that evolutionists claimed were increases in information, and demonstrated that they were actually examples of loss of specificity, meaning loss of information. | ||
