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

(0)

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).

Yes, of course - note the "rarely..." and the "almost..." in the 
above. If you add natural selection and a few million years to the 
mix, you get evolution.

This is well established, not in any doubt and not disputed outside 
of the realms of the devoutly religious. If you wish to bother 
reading a few books then you'll understand the process and save 
yourself from repeatedly appearing so stupid. You might start with 
Richard Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable" - as far as evidence 
goes, the book contains references to the scientific material.

Not only was this worked out many years ago, it has now been 
confirmed beyond all dispute by mapping of the genetic codes.

Posting pseudo science twice just makes you look twice as silly.

regards, Ian