stro@ur-univax.UUCP (08/14/85)
> If Ron's 116 aren't good enough, I've got several more. The >one that really kills Darwinism as far as I'm concerned goes as >follows: chance mutations are mostly harmful or fatal and even >these are rare. The ones which aren't harmful are extremely >rare and are isolated in time and local e.g. a child with six >fingers may be born in Paris in 1725 A.D. and the next such >child in Chicago in 1912 A.D. What are the chances of these two >marrying and having six-fingered children? Further, many >higher animals will simply kill mutants. Amongst humans, in >every century prior to this one, this phenomenon took the form >of the witchcraft trial. Yes, mutations are rare, helpful ones are even rarer; no evolutionist will deny that. The thing creationists keep overlooking is that these mutations have had over a billion years to occur since life began on Earth. Simple life forms also have much shorter reproduction cycles ( some bacteria multiply every hour ) which of course increases the probability of a mutation in the species. Many, Many mutation may also be so subtle that they are not appearant to others of the species who might kill them. The opposable thumb of homo-sapiens evolved over many thousands of years from the left most finger of lower primates. Others in the species were so similar to the ones which had slight mutations that the difference was not noticeable. Background radiation, a major factor causing mutations, may also have been significantly greater in the past than it is today. But why do we even have to talk about this. Go to your local natural history museum and see for yourself the lovely fossil record of evolution which is solid, concrete, scientific evidence, not a 2000 year old fairy tale. If God created the Earth and he wishes us to believe that he did, why did he also create a magnificent fossil history of life and our planet which proves that we and our planet developed naturally. And none of this "God works is strange and mysterious ways" - which is just a cop out for "If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, disregard the evidence." - Steve Robiner University of Rochester {allegra|seismo|decvax}!rochester!ur-univax!stro "We begin the bombing in five minutes" - Ronald Reagan
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/16/85)
>> If Ron's 116 aren't good enough, I've got several more. The >>one that really kills Darwinism as far as I'm concerned goes as >>follows: chance mutations are mostly harmful or fatal and even >>these are rare. The ones which aren't harmful are extremely >>rare and are isolated in time and local e.g. a child with six >>fingers may be born in Paris in 1725 A.D. and the next such >>child in Chicago in 1912 A.D. What are the chances of these two >>marrying and having six-fingered children? Further, many >>higher animals will simply kill mutants. Amongst humans, in >>every century prior to this one, this phenomenon took the form >>of the witchcraft trial. This argument has so many holes in it it's hard to know where to start. First of all, let's take the six finger example. Assuming that polydactyl children do arise as a result of genetic mutation, and that it has some small advantage, then we get three possibilities. The first is that it is a dominant mutation; in this case, it only takes one. Whichever example survives long enough to bear progeny will serve as the focus for steady growth. The second possibility is that it is a submissive trait. In this case, survival to progeny gives dispersal of the gene, all the more so because it is hidden. Eventually the children of the various lines will come together and the trait will reveal itself again; if it has an advantage, even a small one, it will continue to grow as a proportion of the population. In the third case, the trait is composed of a number of genes. This case is much like the submissive case. So it's simply a question of how often you roll the dice. As for killing mutations, it must be pointed out that not all such killings are successful. Again, it's simply a matter of rolling the dice enough. Charley Wingate