[[Mutations change the amino acid. You may have ‘silent site’ mutations, moderately disabling, or lethal changes in the nucleotide sequence. They can have a variable effect on fitness, from highly advantageous to highly disadvantageous. Most mutations are simply neutral until another mutation causes a significant change in the amino acid sequence.]]
You don’t see the problem do you? ANY changes MUST be anticipated- in other words, the metainfo MUST first already be present- mind explaining how that metainfo arose from chemicals? Simple changes don’t just affect one aspect of a system, it affects many, and IF ALL the systems aren’t able to cope- then the changes won’t be assimilated into the whole- in order to cope however, the whoel system must have had the metainfo already present to regulate, direct, and utilize htese changes
[[The end result of “fixing” advantageous genes in a population can sometime be that an existing structure is modified to gain a new function.]]
And hten he goes on to show an ABNOMALITY such as an extra digit- for which the info was ALREADY present- Muller gives NO evidence for NEW non species specific info, morphology, or major organs or systems not specific to that species arising from mutaitons- He just A PRIORI ASSUMES they must have- ‘sometime in the past’, and is doing nothign more htan pointing to MICROEVOLUTION and claiming it is MACROEVOLUTION, or at least claiming such microevolutionary changes ‘could result in’ macroevolutionary changes ‘sometime i nthe past’ (For, once again, which we have NO evidence)
[[“Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one.”]]
Yup- but mind explainign to everyone how simple conservation can lead to NEW NON SPECIES SPECIFIC systems arising without hte info to do so?
[[There is much more to say. Shall I go on? Any questions?
]]
Hopefully it’s not goign to me just more examples of microevolution that is trying to be passed off as ‘evidence for macroevolution’?
We may very well be talking past each other because I still don’t understand where you are coming from. What exactly do you mean by “metainfo”? Are you referring to the genome?
“Muller gives NO evidence for NEW non species specific info”
That is one scientist who co-authored a few papers about very specific genetic data and about very specific species relationships. The rest of the data is produced by the rest of the scientific community.
I still don’t know what you mean by “species specific info”. Are you referring to DNA nucleotides?
I don’t think I should argue further until you clarify this.