Re: john disects your message!:mutations and reproduction

john queen (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:08:53 -0500

---Natural selection could only work on previous miracles. Think of the
most 'simple' organ, now try to conceive it's formation from random. The
assumption is that natural selection promotes those genomes who have
advantageous phenotypes. This means that these structures must evolve to
the extent were they are expressed and function before they can be
'selected'.
I dont think that it's even remotely possible for even the most simple or
organ or tissue in it's most simple form to be formed from total random.
I guess the root of my point goes back to this, natural selection would
have to have something to work with before it can work. This goes back to
my point reguarding random mutations, they have never been shown to form
anything new that's usefull.
One does not need a lab to observe the effects of random mutations. The
Chernobyl effects are still going on today. Children have been born with
missing organs, very small or large arms or legs, retardation, cancer, not
to mention the many herds of live stock and all of thier birth defects. I
really dont think that selectively changing an animals DNA has any bearing
on natural selection, evolution or random mutations.

john w queen ii

At 07:26 PM 6/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>