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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>