385
edits
Mutation: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
It is clear that new [[gene]] [[alleles]] are accumulating in populations today, but there are two possible sources for these changes; mutations, and intentional changes introduced by [[genetic recombination]]. The [[theory of evolution]] attributes the continued production of genetic diversity to mutations, but [[evolutionists]] overlook the fact that the [[cell]] was [[intelligent design|intelligently designed]]. The cellular machinery was programmed to perform a level of self genetic engineering, and is editing genes systematically so that organisms can [[adaptation|adapt]] to a wide variety of environmental conditions. | It is clear that new [[gene]] [[alleles]] are accumulating in populations today, but there are two possible sources for these changes; mutations, and intentional changes introduced by [[genetic recombination]]. The [[theory of evolution]] attributes the continued production of genetic diversity to mutations, but [[evolutionists]] overlook the fact that the [[cell]] was [[intelligent design|intelligently designed]]. The cellular machinery was programmed to perform a level of self genetic engineering, and is editing genes systematically so that organisms can [[adaptation|adapt]] to a wide variety of environmental conditions. | ||
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]]. | Evolutionists contend that mutation, acted upon by [[natural selection]] is the mechanism for evolutionary advancement. In fact, this process accounts for most known accounts of biological evolution. There are also many examples put forward by evolutionary biologists that attempt to show how new genes have been introduced into the genome of an [[organism]]. From the perspective of a creationist, however, most documented cases of mutational change in an organism can be seen as built-in plasticity or variation within the original [[created kind]] or [[speciation]] and mutations are rarely the result of "new information". | ||
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. There are, however, no defining limitations on how far these mutations can change the genome of an organism. | |||
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. | ||
| Line 105: | Line 104: | ||
* [[Genotype]] | * [[Genotype]] | ||
* [[Phenotypic plasticity]] | * [[Phenotypic plasticity]] | ||
* [[MATCH]] | |||
{{biology navbox}} | {{biology navbox}} | ||
