Difference between revisions of "Mutations"
(username removed) |
m (1 revision) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 07:46, 25 May 2014
Mutations
Evolution Says....
ovide the individual with better characteristics than others in The Facts Are .....
(1) "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing
..... good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad." Written by radiation and mutation expert H. J. Muller in "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution", in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 11, No. 9, November 1955 p:331
(2) "There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher viability than the mother species." Written by N. Heribert Nilsson in "Synthetische Artbildung", Verlag CWK Gleerup: Sweden, 1953
p:1212
(3) "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species." Expressed by palaeontologist and evolutionist Stephen J. Gould in a lecture entitled "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" at the Hobart and William Smith College, February 4, 1980
(4) "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." A recent statement by the 1945 Nobel Prize-winner, Sir Ernest Chain. Recorded in Scott M. Huse’s book, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:119
(5) "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur ..... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it." "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Written by the distinguished evolutionist Pierre Paul Grassé (former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, and holder of the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years), in his book "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press: New York, 1977 p:103, 88
(6) "Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology." Written by evolutionist S. Lovtrup in "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth", Croom Helm: London, 1987 p:422
(7) "In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection - quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology." Written by Arthur Koestler in his book "Janus: A Summing Up", Vintage Books: New York, 1978 p:185