Mutations 3

Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its
natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some
are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

b. Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as
albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative
frequency of several types of mutations.

“Lethal mutations outnumber viaibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that
have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more
frequent than the lethal ones.”  Winchester, p. 356.

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.

“... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid
change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously
the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an
instance.” George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-
Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges
to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S.
Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha
changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at
a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald
refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this
one protein!

“Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could
still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually
be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly
organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random
change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which
constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random
interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to
improve the picture.” James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University
of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

“The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards
degeneration ...” Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of
Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,” The New Systematics,
editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved,
because he believes evolution happened.

In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ,
Koestler says:

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be
combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine
that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences
is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of
scientific explanation.”  Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine
(New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences9.html#wp1008854

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> Mutations 3
> 
> Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its
> natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some
> are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

The unwary casual reader should be aware that these postings are 
from supporters of creationism and are intended to cast doubts on 
those branches of science (e.g. evolution, abiogenesis etc) that 
threaten the credibility of their belief in a deity and, more 
specifically, creationism.

The material quoted generally, but not exclusively, falls into one 
or more of the following categories:

1. A genuine quotation from a credible scientist, made many years 
ago when evidence was less extensive. For instance, a quote from 
Charles Darwin from the 1850s, indicating that he didn't fully 
understand genetics would be hardly surprising, as that branch of 
science only developed in the early 1900s.

2. A genuine quotation from a credible scientist that is given out 
of context in order to imply something that wasn't implied by the 
original. This is called Quote Mining:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
and you can read more about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

3. A doctored quote from a credible scientist, where editing has 
been done to either remove or add meaning that wasn't in the 
original. See Quote Mining in (2) above.

3. A genuine quote from a scientist with no real credibility. An 
example would be Michael Behe, a biologist who is a major proponent 
of Intelligent Design and who was recently humiliated into admitting 
that his science was on a par with astrology during the trial over 
teaching of evolution in schools (Kitzmiller v Dover).

4. A genuine quote from a scientist with no expertise in the field. 
An example would be Fred Hoyle's comment about the probability of a 
tornado in a junk yard assembling a 747, which displays a 
fundamental lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

The correlation and processing of these quotes is done by people who 
have a vested interest in discrediting the science in order to 
protect their religious beliefs. This is a centrally architected and 
organised campaign known as the Wedge Strategy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

The motivation do deny or distort the evidence is exposed in this 
quote from Henry Morris, a leading creationist author:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris

"If the Bible is the Word of God—and it is—and if Jesus Christ is 
the infallible and omniscient Creator—and He is—then it must be 
firmly believed [from a literal interpretation] that the world and 
all things in it were created in six natural days and that the long 
geological ages of evolutionary history never really took place at all."
[Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, San 
Diego 1974, p. 251]

It should not be overlooked that much of the process outlined above 
goes well beyond ignorance of the facts and indicates flagrant 
dishonesty on the part of those initially extracting and doctoring 
the quote, and on the part of those who continue to disseminate them 
once the error has been pointed out.