Mutation Breeding, a question on.

In a religious magazine I was given, it gave the quote below. I'm somewhat new to Evolution and would like an explanation to this scientists claims if possible. Thanks.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I won't focus on the scientific issues, I know others here can approach this issue better than I. But here's some other insight into Lonnig's views..http://www.weloennig.de/DeutscheWelle.htmlFrom what I gather, he has trouble separating his theology from his science...

If this is talking only about point mutations, then it might not be too far off. But there are other kinds of mutations, such as where a significant part of DNA is copied, so that the organism now has two copies of that same DNA portion.For sexually reproducing species, it is best to think of reproduction as an experiment in recombinant DNA. Changes brought about by such recombinations can be large, The point mutations provide the raw variation, but sexual reproduction can recombine variants in interesting and useful ways. Looking at mutations alone can be misleading. In my opinion, that's where Lonnig goes badly astray. A species is not genetically defined. The ecological niche is an important part of what defines a species. And there are no clear boundaries to ecological niches. The environment is in a continuous state of flux, and as the environment changes, so do the available ecological niches. Organisms are forced to either adapt to a changing environment, or go extinct.A mutation that might even be deleterious, could be what enables an organism to slightly change the niche it is exploiting. And if the organism does make this change, the mutation will now be seen as beneficial in the modified niche. To properly understand what drives evolutionary change, you have to look to the ever changing environment, and not just to mutation.

What's that?Aside from made up important sounding laws that aren't commonly accepted, there is a genuine issue to discuss. That of genetic homeostasis - and the topic has come up here if you are interested in taking a look.For example: Is genetic homeostasis a barrier to 'macro' evolution?
"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?You might find some more threads to your liking by looking here.The problem faced is this: one might say there is a pseudo-barrier that prevents mutations alone from allowing change in divided populations to occur. However, there are other factors than mutation such as selection pressures and drift that can overcome these barriers.

There is no way to explain such a wholly contextless assertion. Unless these 70 years of mutation breeding have been specifically geared to producing 'an entirely new' species then the fact that they have failed to do so is neither surprising nor relevant.This seems exactly the same as the frequent claims that mutational screens on flies nearly always produce detrimental or lethal effects which entirely ignor the fact that the majority of such screens are designed specifically to identify developmental defects including embryonic lethality.The other significant question, which NWR has touched on, is what Lonnig considers to be an 'entirely new' species. This seems like a term vague enough to encompass cats giving birth to dogs. The creation of an 'entirely new' species sounds much more like something that would constitute evidence for special creation.The new species evolutionary theory would expect would not be entirly new but heavily derived from the previously extant species through processes such as the niche diversification NWR described.TTFN,WK

A quick look on Google shows that the "law of recurrent variation" exists only in the mind and writing of Lonnig. No other scientist has heard of it.This is not surprising when you see what this so-called "law" is. To quote Lonnig: The results I have summed up in "the law of recurrent variation". This law specifies that, for any case thoroughly examined (from pea to man), mutants occur in a large, but nevertheless limited spectrum of phenotypes which - in accordance with all the experiences of mutation research of the 20th century taken together - cannot transform the original species into an entirely new one. In short, he has taken a bit of fundie dogma ---- that speciation doesn't occur --- and called it a law of nature.Now this "law" is known to be false, since speciation has often been observed in the lab and in the wild.Lonnig may be a scientist, but this does not give him the privilege of unilaterally declaring a known falsehood to be a law of nature.

The guy is a researcher of plant biology? How does he explain new plant species popping up right in front of our eyes due to polyploidy?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

It seems that WE Lonnig is JA Davidson's long lost brother. In his conclusion he even manages to namecheck Goldschmidt and Schindewolf.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

"Mutations cannot transform an original species of plant or animal into an entirely new one."

---

What I want to know is what he means by "entirely" new.It sound a little like he is being intentionally vague.

I think he meant "entirely" the same way that creationists use it: a whale changing into a penguin by one mutation in a single generation. In other words, it's either a strawman or... is there a fallacy that describes intentional vague wording for possibility of goal post moving?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

quote:

---

"Mutations cannot transform an original species of plant or animal into an entirely new one. this conclusion agrees with all the research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."

---

You could've stopped at Mendelian genetics and the law of regression and the conclusion would've have been the same as this individual states. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Yes, wrong.TTFN,WK

You wanna expand on this a little further?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Hello ... ? We know speciation has occurred. If you have found a chain of reasoning from valid principles of biology to the proposition that speciation cannot occur, then your chain of reasoning must itself be invalid.This would, perhaps, explain your reluctance to actually present any chain of reasoning linking your premises to your so-called "conclusion".