[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Evolutionary Theory
Your teacher should have introduced you to the fact that nasty mutations
can have benefial results. The gene producing sickle cell annemia is
very nasty. If both your parents have it, your dead. But if only one has
it, you have a built in defence against malaria and can live in jungles
infested with mosquitos carrying the "disease." The mutation therefore
confers a selective advantage and produces hemeglobin that's quite
different from ordinary hemeglobin molecules...evolution via selection has
begun. Genes behind ulcerative colitis also confer protection against
cholera and colitis is not as prevelent in countries were sanitation is
Sometimes mutations simply produce better solutions. Post dentary bones in
the jaws of early synapsids like Dimetrodon, undergo tremendous reduction
and alteration with progression through the therapsids to the mammals.
Two become the bones of the middle ear, the jaw becomes one piece,
and a new jaw joint is formed. This change is quite easily followed
through a skull series that stretches from the Permian through the
Jurassic and links all the ancestors of mammals. It is a definite
transitional sequence and creationists avoid it like the plague because it
sinks them as surely as the Bizmark sunk the Hood.
Of course, this doesn't mean there is no creator. It simply means He is
one fantastic engineer. I wonder if creationists ever consider the
possibility that when Genesis said something was created ( usually the
word used is purposed ), it might have meant that an evolutionary chain of
events was initiated that would lead to the creation of a particular form.
It doesn't have to mean creation in a specific form then and there.To God,
time is nothing.
Stephen Faust email@example.com
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 JSeward123@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 98-02-15 03:02:34 EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << Once and a while, a critter will genetically "stumble" upon a mutation that
> turns out to have benificial features, especially if that animal now has an
> advantage over it's competitors. >>
> My high-school biology teacher (who hates creation) taught us that 99.9999...%
> of all mutations are destructive and don't get passed on in future
> generations. So I fail to see how random mutations could result in something
> better. Even if there was a beneficial mutation, would it get passed on to its
> offspring in future generations?