Mutations 4

No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater
complexity and viability than its ancestors (c).

c.	“There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of
the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” N.
Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK
Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution
on mutations or on recombinations.” Ibid., p. 1186.

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind
of evolution.”  Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New
York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes
can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn
Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly
Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus,
etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced
even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B.
Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American
Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to
be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.”
Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the
Gene,” Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of
producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ
has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional
form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today,
occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a
functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all
of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled
experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to
produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”  Michael Pitman,
Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.

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

On Jun 10, 9:10 am, Pah...@gmail.com wrote: another load of crap

The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same
sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> Mutations 4

Oh dear - it is telling that two of your quotes have to go back to 
the early 1950s to find some text which, when taken far enough out 
of context, appears to give the meaning you want.

If that is the best you can do, then your position is indeed 
completely bankrupt!

regards, Ian