Re: evolution? and faith and Re: Darwin's fish:follow me
john queen (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:20:24 -0500 --
---As you know, the reproductive genes must be changed for traits to be
carried on. The mutations have to occur somewhere in this process. This
means that there is no mind behind the mutations. No matter what
influences the environment had on a particular organism there would still
be this random series of genetic mutations that would have to happen either
at conception or in the genetic material before conception. Let's say
were looking at the formation of an eye. What an amazing set of events
that would have to occur! First the safe guards behind keeping the DNA
code highly accurate would have to be changed. Why? Because it's going to
take millions of mutations to form a code for an eye from totally
random....not your ordinary random. The chances would never increase for
forming this eye since mutations would only occur when the genetic material
(in the reproductive organs) was duplicated. So each time the genetic
material is duplicated the whole sequence for an eye would have to be
formed in completion since the DNA machinery does not know which base pairs
from the previous generation are usefull.
Lets say the whole sequence was formed. This same generation would have
to also carry with it processes that follow the replication of DNA more
closely or the genetic material for the eye will be lost in the following
generation.
john w queen ii
>JQ: creation of DNA to code for new functions or organs or the
>modification of
>existing DNA via mutations to make something usefull is a whole different
>league. If this happened your bodys safeguard against mutations(which is
>
>Is it ? What is different between mutations leading to 'birthdefects' and
>mutations leading to 'something useful' ? What if mutations leave the
>organism with an advantage ? Why do you insist that the only form of
>evolution is the formation of new limbs/organs ?
>
>
>JQ: very precise) would have to first evolve then evolve back after somehow
>improvements were made? Of course this makes no sense. Just the unfolding
>of DNA at specific sites is a marvel of its own.
>
>Why would the body's safeguards have to evolve back and forth ? You are
>making some interesting assertions but perhaps could you give some
>references to research indicating that this is a requirement for mutations
>to happen ? After all birthdefects (sic) happen and there was no
>requirement for the body to evolve and evolve back after the
>'improvements' were made.