JQ: I dont see how directly manipulating or altering genetic material to
create animals that are severly handi-capped could support the notion that
random genetic mutations followed by any natural process could lead to
anything more usefull than what youve described.
But that is not what Steve suggested. Steve suggested that this showed how
simple alterations in genetic material can have as consequence severe
morphological changes.
JQ: I dont think that environmental pressures could ever influence the
propogation of mutations to favor a new envoronment. It's like saying a
insects mouth will evolve so it can eat on a flower.
Nope, you got things in reverse. Mutations which allow insects to survive
better will propagate. It is like saying that if an insects mouth is
better adapted for eating flowers and there is an advantage in being able
to feed on flowers then insects with this trait will prosper and the
genetic material will propagate.
JQ: I will leave my main point that has be ran over by everyone that has
read
my comments (almost). Natural selection can only act on the expressed
parts of the genome. So how did anything of complexity evolve? Take the
Yes. and as Steve showed small changes can have large consequences.
JQ: Unless somehow natural selection has a mind and knows that this
mass(you
and I know it had to start further back than this) of tissue and nerves
will someday be of use to the body.
Nope, you aer still confused about natural selection. It does not direct
the mutations but selects those mutations which are advantageous.
JQ: My main points are these: I dont think random mutations have not been
shown to do what evolution claims and that natural selection is not a
viable mechanism, it's reasonings have been distorted to fit the picture of
evolution.
I'd suggest that the distortion of natural selection as a mechanism is
yours, not evolution's.