From: "John Duryea" <jtduryea-AT-dmv.com>
Subject: "Genetic Mutation" - Wrong Again!
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:36:27 -0500



>> There goes the science of genetics out the window, jettisoned like
>so much
>> excess baggage. Gee, wonder why sharks haven't evolved for 200 million
>> years? Steve just keeps on building his castles in the sand. Note
>once again
>> that Steve's latest "theory" cannot rule out that apes evolved from
>men,
>> need to add on another wing to the castle Steve. Uh oh, watch out,
>there's a
>> tsunami on the horizon...
>>
>> John T. Duryea
>
>Not to disappoint you, but sharks have evolved in the last 200 million
>years. Try comparing fossil shark skeletons to modern shark skeletons
>sometime. Just because a species doesn't change externally, you should
>not draw the faulty conclusion that it is not evolving. Sometimes it's
>just refining itself
>
>-Matt


Okay, I'll bite...what species did sharks evolve to and are all those
reports of sharks being caught by fishermen only hoaxes by creationists?
Were Mendal's experiments in genetics a hoax also? The subject of
conversation is the origin of species by gradual evolution, not
differentiation within the species. After all, man himself can breed plants
and animals.

By the way, "genetic mutation" was a term coined by Hugo de Vries, one of
the rediscoverers of Mendel's work. He applied this term to the sudden
appearance of striking changes in the evening primrose (Oenothera
lamarckiana). Although the term "genetic mutation" has been retained by the
Darwinists as a crutch to their theory of gradual evolution (strange
mis-match there eh?, but true believers are capable of any leap of faith),
it is now known that the the changes observed by De Vries were not mutations
but were caused by chromosomal processes peculiar to Oenothera.

Are there any repeatable, verifiable scientic experiments which cause
"genetic mutation" and lead to the creation of a new species? Until such an
event is an accomplished fact, would not a true scientist consider "gradual
evolution" through means of "genetic mutation" as only a theory. Would a
physiognomic sceptic consider Darwinism as only a "modern idea", indeed,
just a creation of man which like all of his creations, has a history?

What did Nietzsche mean by science being theology's handmaid for too long?

John T. Duryea



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---