Hi there Sunwaiter,
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, a confusion between words. So let's be as clear as possible on this issue.
Evolutionists are confused. A mutation is not an orderly phenomenon. It is an error in the transmission of genetic information which has deleterious effects on those which have them and even, often, on their offspring. The evidence overwhelmingly shows mutations confer no advantages on a creature or on its offspring - only disadvantages. Mutations are caused by such things as exposure to toxic environments, other hazards such as radiation, etc. etc. And many illnesses which are inherited are due to mutations.
Thus, mutations (as defined above) are the very opposite of supposed 'evolution'. They cause 'devolution' as is clearly shown in the evidence of their effects.
Furthermore, the deleterious effects of mutations are able to be neutralised by nature itself. By this process of 'reverse mutation' (as previously indicated). This too is clear evidence mutations are irrelevant in bringing any advantageous changes to a species. The only people who believe and teach the opposite are 'evolutionists' whose theory requires as a holy relic a mechanism for the supposed 'evolution' of new species.
You write -
'If, on a (long) period of time mutations occur, an animal can 'turn' dramatically, into another one, it seems'.
In reply, there is no evidence that if mutations occur over a long period of time that can 'turn' dramatically into another animal'. Where is your evidence ? What is the proof of this ? For, if mutations occur over a long period of time they would of course be more and more harmful to such a population and would eventually destroy the population. If a population was to live, for example, next to high radioactivity over generations it would suffer more and more from the radioactive contamination, yes ? But that source of hazard would not produce another creature. It would (instead) produce only more and more damage on that population. Isn't that obvious ?
So, where is evidence mutations over any period of time create entirely new animals from their ancestors ? It's this story we wish to see proved, one way or the other. It's surely clear that if a population is living in a hazardous environment it will suffer from that environment and will deteriorate. How on earth can this hostile (and mutation causing environment) create a new creature ? Such a thing would surely be 'devolution', the breakdown of the population. Common sense tells us so.
You also say -
'It has been observed that the in-breeding between two kinds of sunflowers identified as distinct species produced a descendance that couldn't breed with ancestral sunflowers, thus making a new species. This experience has even reproduced in a laboratory. i'll try to find some page about it. for now, as usual, i'm outta work! good night or day, take care'.
You are saying that new species of sunflowers have actually been created in laboratories, aren't you ? Because you are saying 'It has been observed'. These are your own words. So you believe this 'new' species has been created very quickly. It was created and seen by scientists. Isn't this what you are saying ?
You say this 'new' sunflower species was the result of
'in-breeding between two different species of sunflowers'. And you say this 'new' sunflower species couldn't breed with either of its ancestral species. Thus, you say,
'it's a new species'.
No, that's not correct. It's not correct for at least 4 different reasons.
1. What evidence do you have the two sunflower species were really different species in the beginning of the experiment and not simply two varieties of the very same species ?
(The history of 'evolution science' is filled with examples of different varieties of the same species being falsely described as 'different species' when, in fact, they later proved to be merely two different varieties of the same species).
Please therefore tell us the name of these two different species.
2. In my earlier letter here I described the fact that all species (including sunflowers) belong to a particular genus. Sunflowers belong to a genus also. But the genus to which sunflowers belong contains many species. Not just sunflowers. Within this genus there are therefore many species. And the ability/inability to cross between two species is restricted by the genus. In fact it is determined within the genus by the relative position of a particular species (in relation to all others). This is why some crosses between species of the same genus are possible, and others are not. It explains what are known as 'clines'. The most famous example of 'clines' being the various seagulls which interact with each other around the globe. Once again, determined within the single genus to which they all belong and their relative position which each occupies within it.
Again, a horse and a donkey are two different species though they belong to the very same genus. This is why they can cross. The result of their cross is what we call a mule. But the mule is not a new species. It's a product of that cross between two different species which belong to the very same genus. The outcome of such crosses is also predtermined by their respective positions within the genus. And such crosses are possible because these two different species are 'consonant' within the genus while other crosses within the genus are not consonant. Other species within the same genus cannot cross because they are not 'consonant' (as described in my earlier post). Please, therefore, tell us the scientific name of the two sunflower species which, you claim, have, merely by breeding, produced an entirely new species.
3. You are effectively saying two different species can produce a third and completely new species which is incompatible with either of its parents, aren't you ? But this claim is completely contrary to the Laws of Inheritance, isn't it ?
4. If 'new' species can be formed simply by crosses between two different existing species you are saying new species may be created all the time in nature. Aren't you ? And so quickly they have been seen by scientists in laboratories. Sorry, but this is wrong.
How does this equate with your idea that 'new' animals take a long period of time (with mutations) before they come in to existence ?
You seem to be arguing in two different directions at the same time.
I know in adavance your claim (sincerely made here) is wrong. But let's please see the actual and specific evidence.
As far as Darwin's theory it remains highly theoretical. But that of Mendel is a demonstrated fact. So much so that it is able to predict accurately. And Mendel's Laws are today beyond theory. They are a vindicated, proved and universally valid fact. So much so they are Laws. There is no higher vindication of a theory than it becoming a universally accepted law.
One example of the massive disavantages caused by mutations is sickle cell anemia -
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...n+sickle+cell+anemia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk
Can you show us even one mutation which has been proved to be beneficial to even a single species in the entire world ?
Best wishes
Robert