nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 61:
Line 61: − + + + + − Grasse’s above quote, however, seems to misrepresent that evolution is defined as hereditary fluctuation around an environmental niche. In reality, Grasse’s opinion about the truth of evolution was unequivocal: − {{QuoteBox|Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7).}} − +
→Mutations and the Theory of Evolution: Remove absolute claims not supported by evidence, remove a Grasse quote not on mutations.
[[Image:Pierre Grasse.jpg|thumb|140px|right|Pierre Grasse]]
[[Image:Pierre Grasse.jpg|thumb|140px|right|Pierre Grasse]]
Mutations that create new genetic [[information]] have been described. Mutations have led to the evolution of new genes<ref> [[Okada]] 1983</ref>, to the novel use of existing genetic information <ref> [[Sean Carroll]] 2005</ref>, or to the construction of new genes by shuffling and recombining of parts of existing genes <ref> [[Godzik A.]] 2008</ref>. Despite these examples, many Creationists continue to falsely claim that new information cannot be created. Occasionally, quoted statements are used to suggest that scientists don't think new genetic information can be created.
Mutations that allegedly create new genetic [[information]] have been described. Mutations are claimed to have led to the evolution of new genes<ref>[[Okada]] 1983</ref>, to the novel use of existing genetic information<ref> [[Sean Carroll]] 2005</ref>, and to the construction of new genes by shuffling and recombining of parts of existing genes<ref> [[Godzik A.]] 2008</ref>, although the claims are disputed<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1586/ The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste], ''Journal of Creation'' 17(3):3–5, December 2003.</ref> or are based on speculation rather than observation of the mutations actually occurring.
Creationists continue to claim that new information cannot be created.
However, mutations that create new genetic [[information]] have never been observed.
[[Pierre Grasse]], who served as Chair of Evolution at [[Sorbonne University]] for thirty years and was ex-president of the [[French Academy of Sciences]], said:{{QuoteBox|Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.<ref name="Grasse">Quoted on [http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Veritas Forum]</ref>}}
[[Pierre Grasse]], who served as Chair of Evolution at [[Sorbonne University]] for thirty years and was ex-president of the [[French Academy of Sciences]], said:{{QuoteBox|Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.<ref name="Grasse">Quoted on [http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Veritas Forum]</ref>}}
Grasse went on to point out that bacteria, much studied by geneticists and molecular biologists, produce the most mutants,<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Veritas Forum]</ref>, yet bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".<ref name="Grasse" />
Grasse went on to point out that bacteria, much studied by geneticists and molecular biologists, produce the most mutants,<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Veritas Forum]</ref>, yet bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".<ref name="Grasse" />
Grasse regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref name="Grasse" />
Grasse regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref name="Grasse" />
Although he believed that random mutations produced new features, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] admitted the difficulty with the idea: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>
Although he believed that random mutations produced new features, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] admitted the difficulty with the idea: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>
[[Creationism|Creation scientists]] argue that mutations ''cannot'' generate new genetic information.<ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]</ref><ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]</ref><ref name="Dawk" /><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]</ref><ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]</ref>. However, it is notable that these claims are devoid of experimentation or support, and are more properly considered [[opinion]] rather than science.
[[Creationism|Creation scientists]] argue that mutations ''cannot'' generate new genetic information.<ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]</ref><ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]</ref><ref name="Dawk" /><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]</ref><ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]</ref>.
==References==
==References==