Maybe I am missing something here, but is this guy suggesting that environmental factors cause not just one gene to alter in the DNA of one cell but the same gene to alter in every cell in an organism at the same time and in the same way to the extent that even new reproductive cells that pass on genetic information to the offspring duplicate the mutation? Moreover, is he suggesting that these genetic mutations, which have taken place in every cell of the organism and even in future reproductive cells, are duplicated in other similar organism to the extent that when two of these organism that have indipentently undergone the same genetic mutation mate, the genetic mutations are passed on into the genetic pool as viable genetic variants? Natural selection I understand. This, on the other hand, is LAUGHABLE!!!!
You know that environmental factor? His name is GOD.
No, he's not, and yes, you are missing something.
Moreover, is he suggesting that these genetic mutations, which have taken place in every cell of the organism and even in future reproductive cells,
Wrong again.
are duplicated in other similar organism to the extent that when two of these organism that have indipentently undergone the same genetic mutation mate, the genetic mutations are passed on into the genetic pool as viable genetic variants?
That's not how new mutations get spread through the population. The old "a new mutation would need an identical mutation to mate with" canard exists only in creationist pamphlets, and bears no resemblance to how things actually work in biology.
Natural selection I understand.
Somehow I doubt that.
This, on the other hand, is LAUGHABLE!!!!
Not at all, although your misunderstanding of the article, and of biology in general, is rather amusing.
You know that environmental factor? His name is GOD.
No, not unless you call environmental stressors "God". See for example: Bradshaw, A.D. (1965). "Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Advances in Genetics vol 13 pp 115-155, [West-Eberhard, M.J. (1986) "Alternative adaptations, speciation, and phylogeny (A Review)," Proceedings National Academy of Science USA vol 83 pp 1388-1392] [Harrison R.G. (1980) "Dispersal polymorphisms in insects," Annual Reviews of Ecological Systems vol 11 pp 152-153.] [Schlichting, C.D. (1986) "The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Annual Review of Ecological Systems, vol. 17 pp 667-693] [Stearns S.C. (1989) "The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity" Bioscience vol 39 pp 436-445].
They say that when something seems laughable or nonsense it might indicate a misunderstanding.
Agreed. Sudden Origins does not contradict Intelligent Design it works Hand in Hand with it.
Consider this scenario: the environment has undergone some change (let's say a long-term dry spell). The existing species are under stress. The stress causes mutations
Some breeding pairs are going to find oasis areas where conditions are still viable. The stress they've been under cause mutations which get passed to their offspring. The oasis areas will probably be isolated. So the great-grandchildren of the breeding pair that found the oasis are only going to have each other to breed with. The recessives will get reinforced. Any mutations that allow them to spread out of the oasis are going to be retained, because only individuals who have that gene will be able to survive in the environment outside the oasis, so there won't be anybody else to breed with
No, he wasn't saying ANY of that. Go back and re-read....(without the blinders this time)