On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Party of Citizens wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/27/01 4:07:27 PM, email@example.com writes:
> > >What proportion of mutations induced in laboratories are adaptive
> > >vs. deleterious?
> > One Drosophila study found 10% were advantageous. However, the
> > current thinking is that mutations are almost never advantageous in the
> > native environment; the high rate is because Drosophila in the lab has
> > a very different environment than Drosophila in the wild (even if the
> > "wild" is people's garbage cans)
> Has anyone demonstrated then that any mutation induced in any species is
> adaptive in the wild?
Is Darwinian evolution a dogma and part of the catechism of
Scientism? (Unless you give the expected answer to this religious question
you won't pass Geology 100). Doesn't it depend on millions of successful
adaptive mutations in the wild to be valid? Why can't genetics labs after
so many years come up with any? Where are the hard fossil records of the
huge number of failed mutations? Bone mutations should be failing out
there left, right and centre and leaving a fossil trail behind.
Why do all the grasshopers and boll weevils have legs and not wheels?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT