Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:02 am
What is not at issue is whether mutations cause mutants or variations in plants. Neither is it whether evolution can occur in species. It's whether this is an unbounded process that can seamlessly produce macro-evolution.Interbane wrote:Mutagenesis is successfully used for commercial ends all the time, moreso now with the anti GMO movement. If Loennig failed dismally on the commercial side, why don't the others?
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2817.full
"Exploiting natural or induced genetic diversity is a proven strategy in the improvement of all major food crops, and the use of mutagenesis to create novel variation is particularly valuable in those crops with restricted genetic variability. Historically the use of mutagenesis in breeding has involved forward genetic screens and the selection of individual mutants with improved traits and their incorporation into breeding programmes. Over the past 70 years, more than 2500 varieties derived from mutagenesis programmes have been released, as listed in the IAEA/FAO mutant variety database, including 534 rice lines, 205 wheat lines, and 71 maize lines (http://www-infocris.iaea.org/MVD/). Although this approach has clearly proved very successful, there are limitations imposed by, for example, the difficulty of identifying a small number of individuals with novel phenotypes within a large population, or by the genetic redundancy present in many plant species as a result of gene duplication and polyploidy, such that many mutations have no detectable effect on the plant."
Loennigs central point is that mutagenesis is not a source of endless variety and that what is observed is a recurring pattern of the same mutations in large populations of plants over time.
In recent years plant breeders have developed techniques for targeted mutagenesis for particular desired traits. E.g. fractionally longer length in cotton.
Of course Neo-Darwinism holds that it's mutations naturally occurring which are the engine of evolution. However; "The occurrence of mutations within the genome of plants is rare,and in natural settings can be lethal."
So while modern mutagenic plant breeders are more upbeat about what they can achieve, none of this supports the hypothesis that it is the path to macro-evolution.
http://plantbreeding.coe.uga.edu/index. ... utagenesis
In fact it should be self evident that messing with the cells mechanisms and gene sequences randomly is not going to have a net positive effect.
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-biological ... imals.html
I keep repeating that large scale changes to entire biological systems such as required in the land mammal to whale example requires finely tuned co-ordination and specificity if anything of this kind is to be produced.And that's apart from the time constraint factor.
Here scientific research indicates that epistasis mitigates strongly against this.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/ep ... 66061.html
http://creation.com/antagonistic-epistasis
Of course it is opponents of Neo-Darwinism who point these things out, but they are real issues with the theory.