Reply #12: False, partially true, false, false, non-existant...

[TechBear_Seattle]

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution
False. Sexual reproduction makes new genetic material available, and just this week a post was made in the science forum about how members of the Bdelloidea class of marine organisms can actually "scrounge" for DNA, which is integrated with its own for the purpose of non-sexual reproduction (see this post.)


Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment.
Partially true. It would be much more correct to say that few mutations provide a direct benefit in an organism's current environment.


Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.
False. Most organisms have a severe over-abundance of DNA. In humans, for example, only about 12% of our genome has any known meaning; the remaining 88% appears to be "junk" DNA, the ghosts of our genetic past. Mutations in that "junk" DNA occur frequently; in fact, variations in this "junk" provides for DNA "fingerprinting" with an extremely high degree of accuracy. And these mutations appear to have no beneficial or detrimental effect.

There is a retro-virus that takes over cells in tulip bulbs, which inserts itself into the part of the plant's genome which codes for petal pigments. Bulbs infected with the virus will "break" from the flower color of the parents into wildly different colors that mark the "parrot" varieties. A mutation caused by a virus, with no direct benefit or detriment to the organism, but which has made it more desireable to human gardeners; thus ensuring the "parrot" varieties' evolutionary success.

And even then, mutations in the active part of an organism's genome usually make no immediate difference, such as handedness in primates or red hair color. Often, a mutation that seems negative also provides evolutionary benefit: the gene that causes sickle cell anemia provides greatly enhanced protection against malaria, while the different blood types all provide different boosts to the human immune system.

And then, there is the fact that a mutation that provides no benefit now, in the current environment, might provide benefit latter on. Case in point: lactose tolerance. The gene that creates lactase is "programmed" to disable after about 5% of a mammal's life expectancy. Once this enzyme is no longer produced, consumption of the milk sugar lactose causes painful intestinal upset. This has a strong evolutionary advantage of freeing a mother from nursing so that she can reproduce again and raise more offspring. Occasionally, a mutation occurs where this gene is not turned off and a mammal can consume lactose for its entire life. In three human populations -- Western Europe, northern India and, most recently, central Africa -- this mutation allowed humans to begin consumption of cow's milk and derived dairy products. This new, high protein, high calorie food source, made these populations very successul; the mutation ended up spreading through nearly all of Europe and much of India and central Asia, and we can watch is spread from the Massai to other African populations. These people represent about 30% of the human population; the remaining 70% mostly lack this mutation.


No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.
Patently false. Spray a pesticide on a large group of, say, weevils, and most will die; a very few will have a random mutation that allows them to survive. If they breed, they will pass this random mutation on to their offspring, so that a latter application of the same pesticide will leave more weevils alive. After a few generations, the pesticide has become wholely ineffective against that weevil.

Or use an antibiotic on an infection, and most of the bacteria will die; a very few will have a random mutation that allows them to survive. If these survivors are not killed off by other means, they will multiply and spread the resistance. Latter application of the same antibiotic will leave more of the bacteria alive and, eventually, the antibiotic becomes wholely ineffective against that bacteria.

We see both of these situations all the time. In fact, antibiotic resistant bacteria is reaching epidemic proportions.


I am not going to bother to address any more of your ignorant nonsense. I recommend you pick up a high school biology text book -- one vetted by actual scientists, not one written by theologians -- and get to work actually learning something.