Replies

Gould's 1980 paper is available on the web but you'd have to pay for it and I don't feel any such need personally. There are however other quotes to the same effect from other scholars and the point appears obvious enough given the generally destructive nature of mutations:

"With ... the inability of mutations of any type to produce new genetic information, the maintenance of the basic plan is to be expected." (p.168) "There are limits to biological change and ... these limits are set by the structure and function of the genetic machinery." (p. 153)

    Ph.D. L.P.Lester & R.G. Bohlin  (Creationists)
    The Natural Limits of Biological Change
    Zondervan/Probe, 1984

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of (E)volution."

    Pierre-Paul Grosse
    past-President, French Acadamie des Science
    Evolution of Living Organisms
    Academic Press, New York, 1977, p 88

"A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair - just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."

    James F. Crow
    Radiation & mutation specialist
    "Genetic Effects of Radiation"
    Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, pp 19-20

I'll ignore the quote from the creationists (DUH!) and the Lamarckian (Grosse) and just deal with the one reputable scientist you quote.

Is there a particular reason, medved, that, for this reference alone, you don't provide the year of publication. Could it be that the year -- 1958 -- if given, would make it sound a bit dated? Eh?

The first paragraph of the article, readable here, underscores the datedness when Crow reveals scientific uncertainty as to whether there are 46 or 48 human chromosomes! Equally dated, the article also says that virtually all mutations are harmful, whereas we now know that the vast majority are neutral.

It should also be noted that the article is agenda driven. When you combine the source, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, with the fact that James F. Crow had pacifist (and possible commie symp) leanings, with the mid/late 50's date (when the United States was still far surpassing the Soviet Union in atomic weapons testing), and read the concluding section of the article, it's clear what is going on. This article has nothing to do with evolution. It's about scaring the American public over the effects of fall-out from atomic testing.