hello Robert. thank you for your last post.
i don't think it's about losing or winning. you did not tell me why long term mutation cannot be considered as a valid theory, and i still don't know what you think of those cute little voles. it seems we're going in circles here. but i thank you for all that you have shared.
some music for you and whoever wants to hear it:
venus, the bringer of peace -gustav holst (wiener philarmoniker)
http://www.deezer.com/track/140609
the earl of derby, his galliard - john dowland (from an album by former Focus' guitarist jan akkerman)
http://www.deezer.com/track/737538
valley of the shadows - bob james
http://www.deezer.com/track/17159
Hi there Sunwaiter !
Thanks again.
You ask why 'long term mutation' is not a valid theory. Perhaps you think I am avoiding giving you an answer. ? No, I'm not.
Let's start at the beginning. If I repeat myself, apologies. I don't mean to 'lecture' you. But I want to clarify my position.
Let's start with the fact that, almost always, the laws of inheritance explain the offspring and history of living things. As everyone realises. Perhaps you too agree ?
Let's add another fact. Charles Darwin did not know anything about the laws of heredity. He knew nothing, nothing at all, about mutations, as you yourself will readily agree. Thirdly, we know today that mutations are really nothing more than genetic errors. That is, they are errors in the transmission of genetic information.
Now, imagine, in a wonderfully complex and highly orderly thing such as life there is an error or a series of errors in the transmission of such highly complex genetic information. Imagine, if you will, a part of these very complex genetic codes is, in some places, garbled or plain wrong. Imagine that mutation happens during the transmission of this complex genetic code. Well, such an event as mutation is fortunately (as everyone knows) extremely rare. But mutations do happen, once in a while. We know when mutations happen they always create bad ('deleterious') and chaotic results. So says more than a century of detailed study on mutations. There are no exceptions. For example, many inherited illnesses are entirely due to mutations which are inherited by offspring.
The error in transmission of huge amounts of data (such as DNA) can have major consequences. Illnesses such as sickle cell anemia are due to mutations. In fact, there's a long list of inheritable illnessses that are due to mutations. As everyone knows.
In the entire history of those studies nobody has ever, not even once, found a mutation which is actually beneficial to an organism. Not even once. As said, they are ALL bad news, without exception.
The evolutionist, already faced with the collapse of his theory by having no mechanism, is now faced with an impossible situation. He realises the laws of inheritance (of heredity) actually preserve the species down the ages. And this itself is not good news for evolutionists who need something to 'explain' what they believe are emerging 'new species'.
So what happens next ? Well, the evolutionist now grabs hold of the idea of mutations being sometimes beneficial. They say sometimes mutations may be inherited which are actually beneficial to species ! This is completely false and lacks a shred of evidence, but you can understand why evolutionists are forced to argue in this way. Mutations are now presented as being vehicles of 'evolution'. Incremental and sometimes beneficial changes are made by 'mutations' say these evolutionists. And these incremental and beneficial changes are inherited by others within the population. Thus (they say) 'evolution' occurs by small, incremental, inherited, mutations, which, although very rare, happen.
The first answer to this scenario is really simple. If some mutations are beneficial let us admit that the overwhelming majority are NOT beneficial. Yes ? If 'evolution' works by mutations then the world must be filled by mountains of mutated species whose mutations are NOT beneficial. But it's not.
If monkeys can eventually type the sonnets of Shakespeare after millions of failed attempts we should expect to see a universe filled with the paper from those failed typing attempts. But we don't. Similarly, if species 'evolve' by favourable mutations we should expect to see a universe filled with unfavourable mutations. Shouldn't we ? The failures should vastly overwhelm us, not successes. But we see no such thing. We see the opposite. For, as said, the stability of the species is phenomenally obvious. Mutations are as said very, very, rare. And they are NEVER beneficial. All of this is further bad news for evolutionists.
But let's continue further. Geneticists have discovered something very amazing. They have discovered that if a mutation is inherited by offspring nature itself can, eventually, get rid of the mutation itself ! This little researched process (which evolutionists are almost entirely ignorant about) even has a name - it's called 'reverse mutation'. And this process of 'reverse mutation' is truly amazing - it does exactly what its name suggests - it finally cancels out the harmful effects of inherited mutations. Nature does this ! So, once again, mutations are shown NOT to lead to any changes. In fact, mutations are inevitably and finally REVERSED, eliminated, from the population.
You ask whether a mutation can remain for a long period of time. Well, the answer is again simple. The answer is that the population will recover from the effects of an inherited mutation when they interact with other populations who are NOT affected by that mutation. That is, if they interact within the 'gene pool'. And, when this happens, the mutations will finally be reversed.
(It's one of the reasons why 'in-breeding' over long periods is not a good idea).
Finally, some populations are isolated from other populations of the same species on islands or other difficult locations. In such cases the mutational form, or the propensity to fall ill from these inherited illnesses remains real. But, once again, interaction with unaffected populations of the same species removes the problem.
The mechanisms of 'reversed mutation' are still little understood. But they are very real. We can and should learn from nature in dealing with all kinds of inherited (mutational) illnesses. 'Reverse mutation' is nature's own way of getting rid of mutations.
So, you see, mutations are not evidence of 'evolution'. They are in fact the very opposite. They are harmful, deleterious, and even nature can eliminate them in its own way. Further bad news for the myth makers of evolution theory. Such changes as we see in nature, amongst species, such as adaption, are entirely due to orderly processes and not due to mutations.
Regards