What amazes me is the lack of discussion of the effects of random
mutations on the genome. Natural selection is named as proof but even this
makes no sense. Even if there were were some favorable mutations by random
chance, what about the non-favorable mutations? If we say these did not
happen or somehow dont count then we are fooling ourselves. New
generations(using the evolutionist models) would only provide more
opportunities for random mutations.
I do not read much besides medical, chemistry and biochemistry books but I
will make a point to read this book.
Steve, I appreciate the post.
john w queen ii
>Here are just a few claims from my book. Using theory and data supplied by
>evolutionists themselves:
>
>1) According to Haldane's Dilemma -- Selective evolution could substitute
>no more than 1,667 beneficial nucleotides during the evolution of humans
>over the past ten million years. That amounts to one three-hundredths of
>one one-hundredth of one-percent of the human genome.
>
>2) According to Motoo Kimura's theory of neutral evolution -- Neutral
>evolution (during the same time as above) could substitute no more
>than 25,000 *expressed* neutral mutations. That amounts to 0.0007 percent
>of the human genome.
>
>3) According to the standard model of genetic evolution and known mutation
>rates -- The human population is in error catastrophe where harmful
>mutations accumulate faster than they can be rid of. This is true even if
>we allot the evolutionists' model the incredible advantage that a full 97%
>of the human genome is inert and unavailable to suffer harmful mutation.
>
>4) The phenomena of error catastrophe (from harmful mutations), and low
>substitution rates (of beneficial mutations), show up even on computer
>simulations (if not arbitrarily prevented by the programmer), and give
>support to my claims above.
>
>Those are astounding claims, don't you agree? That was three and a half
>years ago. Yet no evolutionist has (in fixed form) published a refutation.
>Even the transient and ephemeral internet evolution sites contain little
>serious on these issues. It is good to see the ASA reflector finally
beginning
>a discussion.
>
>When my book came out, I spent abundant time describing it on various
>evolution forums. Evolutionists cannot claim they weren't notified.
>
>-- Walter ReMine
>wjremine@mmm.com
>The Biotic Message -- http://www1.minn.net/~science
>disclaimer: These thoughts are mine.
>===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================
>
>If natural selection "could substitute no more than 1,667 beneficial
nucleotides
>during the evolution of humans over the past ten million years", which is
only
>"one three-hundredths of one one-hundredth of one-percent of the human
genome"
>then that appears to rule out Neo-Darwinian (`blind watchmaker') evolution as
>the cause of why humans are different from apes. Of course the same slowness
>of natural selection affects the apes to, and so on down the evolutionary
tree.
>
>OTOH, this fits nicely with my Mediate Creation model that natural
selection was
>at strategic points directed by the Sighted Watchmaker!!
>
>God bless.
>
>Steve
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
>| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
>| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
>| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>