Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 31 of 274 (13680)
07-16-2002 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by peter borger
07-16-2002 8:25 PM


What'd I say, what'd I say!! (so I can remember for next time -
)
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 07-16-2002 8:25 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 07-16-2002 11:28 PM Percy has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 274 (13682)
07-16-2002 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Fred Williams
07-16-2002 6:24 PM


Fred
Forgive my ignorance about NDT etc, but what is the exact problem here? Of course randomness of mutations is part of any sensible genetic theory. It's selection that fits to the environment and makes sequences in organisms both maintain and move to non-random sequences. This doesn't have to violate the design of genomes. Genomes were designed by God but move to non-random nearby positions in seqeunce space via NDT. Are you saying you don't beleive this at a microevoltuionary level? Are their mainstream sceintists who dont' believe this either? From my POV as a molecular biologist it would be impossible for this theory of random mutaiton and no-random selection to not be true! Please enlighten me otherwise!
OK, so what you're saying is that there is some evidence of directed mutations or that Futuyama says there is? I have read a little about this and I would personally have no problems with some sort of non-randomness but I would find it hard to beleive that there could be a molecualr mechanism that generate seqeunces that are phenotypically useful systematically. If everybody knew that protein folding/binding is the basis of all of ths they would know what a hard ask this is of course!
you say that my optimized enzyme issue violates NDT if it was a non-random mutaiton. The point is it wasn't a non-random mutaiton. It was the one selected from random mutations!
Is there anyone on this planet that is suggesting that standard viral evolution in the lab is producing non-random mutaitons (prior to selction)? Please educate me and then either I will educate them or else they have won a Nobel prize if they can prove it.
I understand what you are saying but even if there is some bizaree mechanism for non-random mutaitons why would that invaldiate random mutaitons/selection as a mechanism also?
OK - I see what you are getting at. The penny has dropped. OK.
So you are arguing for a determinstic evolution. Is that what you beleive in? Everything I know about molecular biology argues against this and if you beleive this then you need to show otherwise (I feel like I've heard this from someone before
).
I very nmuch disagree with this viewpoint on both scientific and Biblical grounds. But I now understand where you are coming from.
OK, now please tell me why you believe this - tell me what this evidence is for non-random mutaitons. I can think of some - I know about low mutation rates of cystines in disulfide bonded cone-shells for example.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Fred Williams, posted 07-16-2002 6:24 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by derwood, posted 07-17-2002 11:25 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 39 by Fred Williams, posted 07-17-2002 9:07 PM Tranquility Base has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 274 (13691)
07-16-2002 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
07-16-2002 10:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
What'd I say, what'd I say!! (so I can remember for next time -
)
--Percy

Percy, it may be that you had the temerity to ask for clarification on PB's sttatements and offer alternative possible explanations which did not involve the complete falsification and overthrow of NDT. I hope you will not be so skeptical when PB publishes his discovery in a peer-reviewed scientific journal....sometime.
In the meantime, are we to be treated to the sight of Fred Williams and Tranquility Base arguing over random or directed mutations on biblical grounds?
BTW, is "random mutation" considered to be:
1) random with respect to any type of mutation (duplication, deletion, substitution etc.) occuring at any point in a genome with equal probability;
2) mutations occuring in the genome which are random in regard to the fitness of the resulting genotype;
3) both, or;
4) random with respect to some other criterion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 07-16-2002 10:11 PM Percy has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 34 of 274 (13706)
07-17-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Fred Williams
07-16-2002 6:24 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]Hi Tranquility Base. I have very much enjoyed reading your posts and contributions to this forum. But it’s no fun to agree on everything
, so I’ll have to challenge you on something you said:
"This is not our battleground [non-random mutations] - our batleground is the origin of distinct kinds."
This is very much an important battleground! Informed evolutionists fight against environmentally directed mutations tooth and nail (case in point, resident PhD evo biologist Scott Page), because it does falsify Neo-Darwinism, as Peter stated. Evolutionist Dr Futuyama correctly noted in his 1998 college book Evolutionary Biology that its is a fundamental tenet of NDT that non-random mutations do not occur! (citation available on request)
According to this leading evolutionist (and there are many others), non-random, environmentally directed mutations (technically called stationary-phase mutation) would invalidate NDT.[/QUOTE]
Hi Fred. As I have written several times, I am still waiting - for over a year now - for the article you said you were working on which you claimed would provide the evidence that non-random mutation occurs as the YEC needs it to and how this can account for such things as the Haldane-busting number of mutations separating chimps and bonobos.
At the OCW board, for over a year, you were asked to support your repeated mantras on this issue, and you never provided a single shred of evidence. On the other hand, I and others provided literally DOZENS of citations demonstrating that what the creationist hawks as 'directed mutation' (ala Spetner) are in fact genome-wide hypermutations resulting from oxidative stress. They were not 'directed' at any specific sites. Indeed, the 'discoverer' of the phenomenon, Cairns, after whom the phenomenon was sometimes called, retracted his original conclusions after seeing additional data.
The creationist, however, refuses to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Fred Williams, posted 07-16-2002 6:24 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Fred Williams, posted 07-18-2002 8:29 PM derwood has replied
 Message 54 by peter borger, posted 07-20-2002 7:50 PM derwood has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 35 of 274 (13707)
07-17-2002 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tranquility Base
07-16-2002 10:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Fred
...
So you are arguing for a determinstic evolution. Is that what you beleive in? Everything I know about molecular biology argues against this and if you beleive this then you need to show otherwise (I feel like I've heard this from someone before
).
I very nmuch disagree with this viewpoint on both scientific and Biblical grounds. But I now understand where you are coming from.
OK, now please tell me why you believe this - tell me what this evidence is for non-random mutaitons. I can think of some - I know about low mutation rates of cystines in disulfide bonded cone-shells for example.

TB, you cannot know how pleased I am to finally see a knowledgible creationist challenge Williams on his 'matter of fact' calims.
However, when it comes to getting him to support his claims, well, take a number...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 10:41 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by derwood, posted 07-17-2002 11:32 AM derwood has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 36 of 274 (13708)
07-17-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by derwood
07-17-2002 11:25 AM


One example:
EMBO J 1997 Jun 2;16(11):3303-11
Genome-wide hypermutation in a subpopulation of stationary-phase cells underliesrecombination-dependent adaptive mutation.
Torkelson J, Harris RS, Lombardo MJ, Nagendran J, Thulin C, Rosenberg SM
Department of Biochemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Stationary-phase mutation in microbes can produce selected ('adaptive') mutants preferentially. In one system, this occurs via a distinct, recombination-dependent mechanism. Two points of controversy havesurrounded these adaptive reversions of an Escherichia coli lac mutation. First, are the mutations directed preferentially to the selected gene in a Lamarckian manner? Second, is the adaptive mutation mechanism specific to the F plasmid replicon carrying lac? We report that lac adaptive mutations are associated with hypermutation in unselected genes, in all replicons in the cell. The associated mutations have a similar sequence spectrum to the adaptive reversions. Thus, the adaptive mutagenesis mechanism is not directed to the lac genes, in a Lamarckian manner, nor to the F' replicon carrying lac. Hypermutation was not found in non-revertants exposed to selection. Therefore, the genome-wide hypermutation underlying adaptivemutation occurs in a differentiated subpopulation. The existence of mutable subpopulations in non-growing cells is important in bacterial evolution and could be relevant to the somatic mutations that give rise to cancers in multicellular organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by derwood, posted 07-17-2002 11:25 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-17-2002 9:15 PM derwood has not replied

Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 274 (13718)
07-17-2002 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Fred Williams
07-16-2002 6:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Informed evolutionists fight against environmentally directed mutations tooth and nail (case in point, resident PhD evo biologist Scott Page), because it does falsify Neo-Darwinism, as Peter stated.
Wow! Fred has endorsed Scott as an "informed evolutionist"! Scott, you have arrived! The next time Fred says "informed evolutionist say...", you can contradict him, since you are now part of the club.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
If it got there by non-random mutation, this explicitly means the information was already present in the genome and no upward evolution occurred.
More info-babble. I have often wondered whether the following is an increase in information under the Creationist definition. I write a book, using only words that exist in Webster's dictionary. Is this new information? Of course not, as all the words were already present in the dictionary. It is just a rearrangement of existing information (much like Fred's "changes in an algorithm do not a new algorithm make").
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Fred Williams, posted 07-16-2002 6:24 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 07-18-2002 11:02 AM Fedmahn Kassad has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 38 of 274 (13735)
07-17-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by derwood
07-16-2002 1:15 PM


If you like I'll show you how to falsify natural selection. Better admit that NDT has fallen.
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by derwood, posted 07-16-2002 1:15 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 5:39 AM peter borger has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 39 of 274 (13739)
07-17-2002 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tranquility Base
07-16-2002 10:41 PM


quote:
Genomes were designed by God but move to non-random nearby positions in seqeunce space via NDT. Are you saying you don't beleive this at a microevoltuionary level?
It sounds like we are both being tripped up by the other’s view of what NDT is. I agree that random mutations occur, and that selection works as a conservation mechanism to preserve the species. But this isn’t NDT. NDT argues that random mutation/selection is the mechanism that has taken a cell to a fish to a frog to a man. NDT therefore requires the existence of beneficial mutations that add or increase the information in the genome.
quote:
OK, so what you're saying is that there is some evidence of directed mutations or that Futuyama says there is?
Futuyama disputes the existence of adaptive mutation. He recognizes that it would be the death-knell of NDT.
Here's what he said in his college textbook "Evolutionary Biology": "The argument that adaptively directed mutations does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory" p 282
quote:
I understand what you are saying but even if there is some bizaree mechanism for non-random mutaitons why would that invaldiate random mutaitons/selection as a mechanism also?
It wouldn’t invalidate random mutation/selection, but as far as Futuyma et al are concerned, they don’t want to find any adaptive mutations. This gets to the heart of why Futuyma and his fellow evolutionists will fight directed mutations tooth and nail. Non-random mutations imply that the information was already coded in the genome some time in the past, and that the environment merely acted as a switch to enable the information. This clearly points to a programmer, something evolutionists obviously do not want to admit to! Can you imagine the evolutionist trying to explain how a code could arise by pure random processes? They are totally helpless because they cannot use their magic wand of selection. The odds such a capability arising by pure chance would be greater than the number of atoms in the universe many times over (ie impossible). That is why thy will fight, rightly so from their POV, adaptive mutations. It clearly invalidates the synthetic theory (NDT).
quote:
OK - I see what you are getting at. The penny has dropped. OK. So you are arguing for a determinstic evolution. Is that what you beleive in? Everything I know about molecular biology argues against this and if you beleive this then you need to show otherwise (I feel like I've heard this from someone before ). I very nmuch disagree with this viewpoint on both scientific and Biblical grounds. But I now understand where you are coming from.
I personally believe adaptive mutations exist, because it makes great design sense. If you do not believe there is evidence for adaptive mutations, I can understand your objection on scientific grounds (I’ll get back to this). But what is your objection on Biblical grounds? Again, please realize that I am not saying that random mutations are not occurring. In fact I would say they are in the vast majority. All life is in decay, and the scientific evidence strongly supports this (I think we are in agreement here?).
My wife called so I have to go home
(I will try to follow-up on this and get to Scott's post tomorrow)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 10:41 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-17-2002 9:45 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 49 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 5:41 AM Fred Williams has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 274 (13740)
07-17-2002 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by derwood
07-17-2002 11:32 AM


SLPx
I agree that there is no doubt some non-randomness to mutations. It's just very hard to imagine systematic means for generating phenotypiczally useful ones. Such findings are interesting to both evolutionists and creationists but it seems impossible that such findings could change the overall validity of selction from randomness.
If I followed what you said then there is evidence that lac mutations correlate over random with those phenotypically successful (why adaptive reversion - do these mutations preferentially go back to pre-used successful mutations?)?
My example is of hypermutation of non-cystine codons and lack of mutation in cystine codons is in cone shell toxin peptide genes which are folded by multiple disulfide bridges. At first glance one thinks no surprise - of course the cystine residues must remain cystine residues (due to the disulfide bridges and selection for function). But the point is that the cystine codons do not change (to other cystine codons). A collaborator of mine has reported this work in Science a few years ago and suggests that there must be some molecular mechnism for these particular genes that keeps the cystine codons from mutating. The hypermutaion of non-cystine residues allows the cone-shell toxins to adapt to changing molecular targets in their prey. I have no problem with this but it is clearly a special case (I would of course suggest designed but that is not the point here). Even if such a mechanism were to be found throughout genomes it's not as if it was something inherent but rather molecular systems fine-tuned for each particular phenotypic requirement. It reminds one of how antibody repetoirs work at the gene level - maintinaing a core structure with changing loops. But none of this suggests determinisitic evolution with or without God or that the basic viewpoint of random+selection is undoubtedly the main story.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by derwood, posted 07-17-2002 11:32 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 5:45 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 274 (13741)
07-17-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Fred Williams
07-17-2002 9:07 PM


Fred
I agreew with you about what NDT is - I obviously only expect NDT to do things at a microevolutionary level. The rest I put down to design. For some reason you seem to be wanting to come up with a molecular mechanism for progressive creation? Maybe not - see below.
I agree with Futuyama with the proviso of special systems like my cone-shell example (see my last post).
Ok, I agree that non-random mutations would probably imply that the information was already coded in the genome some time in the past (just like nmy cone-chell example). Hoever some limited non-randomess (like codon bias etc) is not necessarily evidence of design).
My difficulty is understanding why you think non-adaptive mutaions might be so pervasive as well as understanding why you as a YE-creationist are so interested in it. To me the examples so far are Behe type examples of design - fine. But are you tprposing progressive deteminsitic evolution/creaition.
I agree with you that random mutations lead to decay but I can also imagine them leading to improvement too (ala the finches). I agree that superimposed on top of small improvements will be a graudal decline. But I would still put Darwin's finches down to random + selection. Remember I have seen this in viral evolution in the lab. the population does get undeniably fitter.
My big question: are you proposing that adaptive mutations led to theistic macroevoltuion or are you simply trying to put down finch etc microevoltuion to adaptive mutations?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Fred Williams, posted 07-17-2002 9:07 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by derwood, posted 07-18-2002 11:11 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 44 by Fred Williams, posted 07-18-2002 8:27 PM Tranquility Base has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 42 of 274 (13754)
07-18-2002 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Fedmahn Kassad
07-17-2002 1:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
Wow! Fred has endorsed Scott as an "informed evolutionist"! Scott, you have arrived! The next time Fred says "informed evolutionist say...", you can contradict him, since you are now part of the club.
FK

LOL!
I missed that gem! WOW! Lets just hope that Fred doesn't claim that I am one of those "informed evolutionists" that "knows" functional means the same thing as genis, as Fred once wrote, or the "informed evos" that know how to remove SNPs from a single taxon's DNA sequence, as Fred insisted for some time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-17-2002 1:59 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Fred Williams, posted 07-22-2002 9:24 PM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 43 of 274 (13757)
07-18-2002 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tranquility Base
07-17-2002 9:45 PM


TB,
Fred has claimed in the past that 'adpative mutations' - for which he claims there is a 'large and growing cache of evidence' for (yet for some reason refuses to provide a single example of) - can 'explain' the large number mutational difference between creatures that are assuredly from the same 'kind' , and that this also rescues creationist genetics (if there is such a thing) from the cost issue. The example I used to show that creationist genetics is already a farce is the common chimp -bonobo issue (see http://geocities.com/huxter4441/williams2.html, about halfway down). I have used a similar example in the past, and Williams waved it off by claiming that 'adaptive mutations' can explain it all. He never provided any actual documentation to support his claim, or even a rationale, for that matter.
When I have asked other creationists for examples of this occurring in multicellular eukaryotes, I am usually presented with some phenotypic variation studies presented in Spetner's book, even when I ask for genetic analyses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-17-2002 9:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-18-2002 9:20 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 62 by peter borger, posted 07-23-2002 12:48 AM derwood has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 44 of 274 (13779)
07-18-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tranquility Base
07-17-2002 9:45 PM


TB, let me begin by saying that my belief and search for evidence of such mutations is not because I think it's some magic bullet. It’s just one of many things I’m interested in, and I recognize it could turn out to be a wild goose chase.
When I engage evolutionists on internet boards I tend to delve into corner cases and not repeat the same arguments that many of the skeptics have already heard. However, when I give presentations or witness in public, I begin with the same powerful evidence that Paul talks about in Romans 1, that God’s attributes are clearly seen, and that there is no excuse to believe in fairytales like evolution. So, coming right out of the gate there is no better argument for creation than the creation itself, hence I will stress design when first engaging people. When evolutionists meet their Creator, and they will whether they like it or not, it will be because of the patently obvious design in nature why they will have absolutely no excuse for denying his existence or his handwork. I realize I’m preaching to the choir, I just wanted to make it clear that adaptive mutation isn’t some magic bullet evidence I’m looking for. Without it the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of creation. I first responded to this thread to defend Peter’s claim that the existence of adaptive mutations would indeed invalidate NDT, as prominent evolutionists such as Futuyma admit. I then added that it would not kill the evolutionary theory in general, as the naturalists (evolutionists) would merely shift the paradigm and find some way out.
OK, back to the topic at hand.
quote:
My difficulty is understanding why you think non-adaptive mutaions might be so pervasive as well as understanding why you as a YE-creationist are so interested in it.
Actually, while I suspect they exist, I don’t know how pervasive they are. My interest in them stems from two things:
1) As a design engineer, I look for patterns in nature that make good design sense while also thwarting explanation via natural processes. The existence of such an obviously pre-ordain mechanism cries out design. Evos are completely helpless because they cannot bring selection to their rescue.
2) Next is the part Scott alluded to regarding our past exchanges on this. They may help explain the rapid diversity since the flood. It all stems from Haldane’s Dilemma that mathematically demonstrated the limit on how fast a mutation under positive selection can reach fixation in a population. The rate is primarily governed by reproductive capacity. Haldane showed that even when using assumptions favorable to the evolutionary POV, you could only get 1 substitution per 300 generations. If Haldane’s model reflects reality, it deals a serious blow to the evolutionary theory. So what does this have to do with adaptive mutations? Well, evolutionists rightly pointed out (as did creationists including Kurt Wise) that it would also pose a dilemma’ for YECers because of the diversity we see since the flood 5K years ago. I argued that one possible way out for creationists were via adaptive mutations because they incur absolutely NO cost because the information already exists in the population’s gene pool. Thus you could theoretically have a new trait go from one to many in a single generation (despite Page's claim to the contrary, I have given this rationale many times in the past).
This takes me to Scott’s complaint that I haven’t produced an article I promised over a year ago on adaptive mutations. There are three reasons:
1) (related to #2 above) As I have studied Haldane’s model, I’m starting to see how creationists could explain the post-flood diversity without invoking adaptive mutation as one possible solution. I can intuitively see how high mutation rates + founder effect + genetic drift can account for the diversity we see since the flood. Evolutionists can’t invoke high mutation rates + founder effect + drift because they require beneficial mutations to be part of the mix, while creationists do not have such a requirement. It is simply indisputable that high mutation rates + founder effect + drift (ie small populations) is a bad vehicle for upward evolution. Many evolutionists recognize this, and thus will argue that upward evolution occurs in large populations, while many others are in denial of the impact of small populations on upward evolution. The key is the mutation rate. There are far more deleterious ones than beneficial ones, which does not bode well for small populations from an evolutionist POV, but may account for wide-scale diversity from a YEC POV.
2) I’m watching the adaptive mutation wars to see how they play out. Just do a search on stationary-phase mutations at Yahoo, Genetics.org, etc.
3) I have had little time available for creation research since much of my personal PC time was taken up when I took over the CRS website last year (this time constraint will hopefully lessen now that I’ve finished the online store)
quote:
My big question: are you proposing that adaptive mutations led to theistic macroevoltuion, or are you simply trying to put down finch etc microevoltuion to adaptive mutations?
Not at all. I propose it may be one of several mechanisms that produced diversity since the flood. BTW, evolutionists have become equivocal with macroevolution in recent years by including alloptric speciation (a type of speciation creationists do not dispute), in the definition. I’ll take it you mean micro-evolution through allopatric speciation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-17-2002 9:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-18-2002 9:39 PM Fred Williams has replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 45 of 274 (13781)
07-18-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by derwood
07-17-2002 11:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
Indeed, the 'discoverer' of the phenomenon [adaptive mutations], Cairns, after whom the phenomenon was sometimes called, retracted his original conclusions after seeing additional data. The creationist, however, refuses to do so.

Citation please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by derwood, posted 07-17-2002 11:21 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by derwood, posted 07-19-2002 2:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024