Quote:
FACTS:
Starting in the late 1930s, scientests began to experiment with "controlled mutation", hoping to induce and select favorable mutations in plants and animals, producing new and better plants and animals. Scientists in the U.S., Europe, and Asia launched well-funded programs to do this. However, almost all the mutants died or were, in fact, weaker than the original varieties. And the mutations never produced a new species.
Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. In addition, less than 1% of the plant mutations were chosen for further research and less than 1% of this group were found suitable for commercial use. The results in animals were even worse, and the method was abandoned entirely.
(for more information, see the book "Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and teh Law of Recurrent Variation" by scientist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig).
Ponder this: If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artifically inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that that an unintelligent process would do a better job?
Starting in the late 1930s, scientests began to experiment with "controlled mutation", hoping to induce and select favorable mutations in plants and animals, producing new and better plants and animals. Scientists in the U.S., Europe, and Asia launched well-funded programs to do this. However, almost all the mutants died or were, in fact, weaker than the original varieties. And the mutations never produced a new species.
Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. In addition, less than 1% of the plant mutations were chosen for further research and less than 1% of this group were found suitable for commercial use. The results in animals were even worse, and the method was abandoned entirely.
(for more information, see the book "Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and teh Law of Recurrent Variation" by scientist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig).
Ponder this: If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artifically inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that that an unintelligent process would do a better job?
I dont have time to go thru the whole post, but I'll have a poke at this bit....
That whole quote is talking about humans trying to improve the 'strains' od various species in pursuit of an improvement from a purely industrial production point of view. Those scientists were being given the job of improving yields on farms, hence words like 'improved', 'favourable', 'new and better' being used. That should have been your clue really.
Many plants (corn being the obvious one) have been selectivly bred to improve their yields for the agriculture industry. this has led them to become so specialized that they have been unable to survive without human intervention (corn actually did this itself several thousand years ago).
Nature (evolution) doesn't use the same algorithms as humans and cares little for industrial yields as an end result.
By comparing natural 'evolutionary' systems to experiments by scientists in pursuit of larger crop yields (including animals) you immediatly have shown your misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory is.
gratz.
