Replies

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?

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].

You've claimed I am wrong but you have not explained how these things could possibly be true. How could these mutated genes be passed on as recessive genes as the author claims unless they entered the genetic information of reproductive cells? If I am missing something, please, explain it to me.

P.S. Unlike you, I have never read creationist literature. This is pure logical analysis and evolution has never added up in my book.

I too could use some explanation of this if you could take the time. Its far outside of my studies (you know how it is, just scrabblin' around in the dirt isn't physics).

It would seem the Inteligent Designer is a bit red in tooth and claw.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565622/posts?page=59#59