Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution

On Oct 7, 5:49 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 5, 6:57 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:



Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1191627142.490752.264900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwinism-Richard-
Milton/dp/0892
817321

David C. Read, reviewing Richard Milton's "Shattering The Myths Of
Darwinism" (1997), writes:

<snip inanity>

As Milton points out in Chapter 14, "Of Cabbages and Kings," no one
has ever observed a spontaneous inheritable genetic mutation that
resulted in a changed physical characteristic, aside from a small
group of well-known and usually fatal genetic defects. A ***beneficial***
spontaneous genetic mutation, though necessary to the Neo-Darwinian
theory of evolution, remains a hypothetical event.

This is pure poppy***. I myself am fortunate enough to embody two
physically obvious mutations: Both of my little fingers are bent at the
last two joints in the plane of the hand, so the tip is pointing towards
the ring finger at about 40 degrees. I inherited this from my mother,
who got it from her father. I don't know when the mutation originally
appeared, but it sure as hell is inheritable.

The point at issue, Jim, was ***beneficial*** mutation.

The word "beneficial" is an adjective that describes the *effect* of a
mutation in a particular environment. A mutation must be assigned the
adjectives "beneficial", "neutral", or "detrimental" empirically by
observing an effect. The standard used for determining the
"beneficialness", "neutralness", or "detrimentalness" of a particular
mutation in a particular environment is the mean effect that mutation
has on "relative reproductive success" (a measureable quantity)
compared to some other genotype in that environment. If the mutant
phenotype significantly increases relative reproductive success, it is
considered "beneficial" in that environment. It the mutant phenotype
significantly decreases relative reproductive success, it is
considered "detrimental" in that environment. It the mutant phenotype
has no significant effect on relative reproductive success, it is
considered to be "neutral" in that environment.

How to you determine the "beneficialness", "detrimentalness", or
"neutrality" of a mutant? And do you consider the possibility that a
mutant phenotype could be "beneficial" in one environment,
"detrimental" in another, or "neutral" in yet a different
environment? Curious minds want to know.

No objective person would consider your crooked fingers beneficial.

The second mutation is
novel in my family: the second and third toes of both feet are webbed
past the last joint.

Web feet are, unfortunately, not all that uncommon, especially in
Third World countries; and again, nobody would consider this deformity
beneficial.

I don't have any children, so I can't prove this
is inheritable, but it certainly has changed a physical characteristic.
Both of these mutations are, I suppose, neutral, though I have
discovered that the bent little fingers make holding a beverage can much
easier and more secure.

<sip rest of crap>

"Neutral"?

Very generous and subjective adjective to use in describing
deformities.

Ray


.

Quantcast