Hi Sam, I agree that some, if not all, of what Darwin observed was the results of natural selection. Since he observed the end results, I don't think it would be technically appropriate to call that *scientific fact* (since there was no reproducible series of controlled experiments). But, no doubt, he was correct that adaptation to environmental factors was at work in the environment. (I'm not disputing his observations, I'm just trying to use the correct words).
However, without genetic mutation, there is no mathematical possibility that evolution - in the sense of bring forth a new variation or species - can occur. It is mathematically possibly (but, in nature, not so probable) for a species to lose certain traits, but a new DNA sequence cannot occur without a means to introduce the change. Down's Syndrome is an example of a negative mutation (genetic change located at the Number 21 Chromosome). Were it to have beneficial effects (to increase the competitive advantage of the individual) and to be reproducible through normal reproduction, then it would be a positive mutation. But, mathematically, neither can occur without somehow changing the DNA structure. The evolutionary theories require both natural selection and genetic mutation. Creationists (of all varieties) and Evolutionists (of all varieties) would agree with the natural selection part (Mendelian Genetics). But, Creationists won't accept the (positive) mutation part and Evolutionists do. Therein lies the difference. Bob Original Subject - Re: arachne-digest V1 #2035 On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:08:27 -0500 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 10:30:28 -0800, Ray Andrews wrote: > > <snip> > > > As for me, I accept as observable fact that species change, and > are subject > > to selection pressure. I accept Darwin's theory as to how these > facts > > interact to produce change over time. I am very suspicious about > the > > claims that all life forms on earth arose from a common ancestor, > for two > > main reasons. First, because the hard evidence for this is > questionable > > at best; second, because the existing *theory* of evolution can't > really > > explain how gross anatomical changes could come about by small > mutations. > > <snip> > > There are many existing theories of evolution, some of which > attribute > the processes of mutation as being the main cause of it. Darwin's > theory explaining how evolution occurs does not involve mutations, > either large or small. His theory is about "Natural Selection". > You > might want to read his books to understand what he means by that. > Darwin's theory of "Natural Selection" is still the "prevailing" > theory > used to explain what most evolutionists believe to be the principle > mechanism that causes evolution. Many people have the very > mistaken > belief that Darwin's theory is about mutations. > > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ > > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
