Science indicates evolution of species.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We are Doomed, guess it's eternal.

a reply to: Phantom423

So phants , was that a picture of empirical evidence
🎉💕💥
You are a winner

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes, it was very sad wasn’t it. Terrible thing christians have done, inexcusable and not according to Christ’s teaching

Alternatively, Christians in Stalins Soviet Union, Mao and China, they are forgotten.
Communism endorsed their deaths in an atheist sanctioned state for decades.

Christianity has failed, recovered, at least trying to get better, probably fail again.
Jesus never taught harm was acceptable
That’s the difference

a reply to: TzarChasm

So I take it your not here with empirical evidence either

Look, phantasm, tc who else we missing

The atheist list of evolution super heroes.


Here you go, some kryptonite for fun

originally posted by: Raggedyman

I bet they won't address the empirical evidence he gives. Instead they will make bigoted remarks about a general group of people. It's their common evasion tactic from reasonable discourse.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Did God not command Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac?

That's pretty harmful if it was carried out, nevermind a complete and utter mind feck ta boot.

But it's fine because it was all a joke really and just a test???!!!

Tell you one thing, Man, God, beast or whatnot, anybody or anything that threatened my family, or proposed such a thing, is not exactly something that would be worshiped, quite the opposite in fact.

And Jesus was not even a twinkle in his daddy's eye when that allegedly went down.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Raggedyman

Did God not command Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac?

That's pretty harmful if it was carried out, nevermind a complete and utter mind feck ta boot.

It put Abraham on the level of God because that is exactly what God would do with his firstborn Son - sacrifice Him for the betterment of humankind. It is also some beautiful foreshadowing that shows the divine inspiration behind the whole text.

a reply to: cooperton

Some of our more familiar friends foam at the mouth when Kent is introduced.
I don’t agree with everything he says, but entertaining fella is Kent.
Can be a little divisive but I can forgive him.

Most atheist evolutionists turn a crimson red, and look like their cooking when they watch Kent and his oration skills

a reply to: andy06shake

It’s a very interesting story Andy, some things in it that you wouldn’t understand even if explained
It’s very hard to relate Gods relationship with Abraham and you wouldn’t accept it anyway

“God had earlier promised Abraham that he would make a great nation of him through Isaac, which forced Abraham to either trust God with what mattered most to him or to distrust God. Abraham chose to trust and obey.”

“Abraham told his servants "we" will come back to you, meaning both he and Isaac. Abraham must have believed God would either provide a substitute sacrifice or would raise Isaac from the dead.”

But believe as you wish, I am not selling you anything

And Jesus, was from the beginning, but your understanding of the bible, well you know it

a reply to: Raggedyman

The completely benevolent thing to do, ordering up a child sacrifice, you're right i would not understand at all.

Just a test.

As to the beginning, well which one would that be?

The one the Bible claims was only 7000 odd years ago?

I do believe as i wish, whereas you believe as you are told and conditioned to do so.

I glad you're not selling me anything because I'm not buying it, not many rational people do.

originally posted by: andy06shake

I do believe as i wish, whereas you believe as you are told and conditioned to do so.

You realize evolution is the state-sanctioned origin theory? We are supplanted the idea of evolution from an early age with dinosaurs - never given any empirical evidence (besides blanket statements about a mythical fossil record). There are blind believers in both camps, but don't act high and mighty and suppose everyone who believes in God does so because they are blindly conditioned to do so. I searched for truth without bias my whole life - my path was Catholic to atheist to agnostic to Christian.

a reply to: cooperton

Well good luck to you cooperton.

Im probably at my agnostic stage right now.

Everyone is searching for truth mate, religious or otherwise.

As to high and mighty, not my department, nor claim, might be Christianity through.

You don't believe in dinosaurs? Despite the fossil records?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
1. Chimps are the closest to us, and great apes in general are a close second. You must admit there are EXTREME similarities there, why?

... Granted, we have certain things in common with animals. We have to eat, drink, and sleep, for example, and we are able to reproduce. Still, we are unique in many ways. ...

Source: Is Belief in God Reasonable?

Chapter 6: Huge Gulfs—Can Evolution Bridge Them? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

...
The Greatest Gulf of All

Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”⁠15

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. ... The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth​—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.”⁠16

Consider: The brain enables us to breathe, laugh, cry, solve puzzles, build computers, ride a bicycle, write poetry, and look up at the night sky with a sense of reverential awe. Is it reasonable​—indeed, consistent—​to attribute these abilities and capacities to blind evolutionary forces?

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.​—Genesis 1:26.

Something from the previous chapter (Chapter 5: Letting the Fossil Record Speak):

... He admitted: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”⁠21 Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.⁠22

Back to the previous article:

30. What is the fossil record really saying?

30 Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.”⁠17 For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: “Special creation.”

That quotation at the end is why I showed where that expression came from as quoted in the previous chapter (besides leaving a reminder that the details concerning the fossil evidence related to the statements above can be found in that other chapter). More info:

How Unique You Are!
Chapter 7: “Ape-Men”​—What Were They? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

Don't just focus on the similarities, it's the differences that tell the real and more complete story. Open your mind for real, broaden your horizon, take of the evolutionary glasses trying to interpret everything into an evolutionary view of history. Give it a try, it won't kill ye. At most, it may cause some emotional distress to 'let go' of the preferred and popular evolutionary mythology used to make people think they will appear smart for rolling with it, and stupid if they don't.

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)
...
‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.
...
In April 1989, in a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-​earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

The original quest for truth is often forgotten as each one gleans for ideas to bolster his own emotional conviction, whether it be scientific dogma or religious creed. Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid. And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11. In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: whereislogic

Evolution seems to have managed to produce Humanity so Caterpillars that turn in to Butterflies via a biological process involving a change in the animal's body structure don't seem that much of a chore.

Programmed by nature and evolution not God.

yeah, yeah, 'nature and evolution did it' (by chance, by accident, spontaneously without foresight or planning), I know that's your claim and belief. Here's the problem with it though: the act of programming has a certain set of minimum logical requirements, abilities and attributes, that nature (or nature and evolution, as referring to the mythological evolutionary or natural forces that turn disorderly molecules into a meaningful and functional code by chance as told in the evolutionary storyline) does not have. Yet a living intelligent being with foresight, technological know-how and programming skills does have (to mention a few of those requirements).

But go ahead, if you want to make vague nonsensical statements about "nature and evolution" programming the code of life, including or specifically the metamorphosis ability of caterpillars, without elaborating on any supposed evidence for this mythological ability of "nature and evolution" to program such things, probably because such evidence does not exist in any reasonable form*, then what's there left to say other than to observe that your blind faith in "nature and evolution" accomplishing such an intelligent feat and technological marvel, knows no bounds. (*: not anything like the evidence we have that a living being or beings with a certain type of intelligence and corresponding level of technological know-how can accomplish this)

a reply to: richapau

As quoted from an article in one of my earlier comments:

The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
...
...Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. ... who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants ...
...
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

...
For the first of these “three great classes” of “copious data,” Gould cites as “direct evidence” for evolution the small-scale changes within species of moths, fruit flies, and bacteria. But such variations within species are irrelevant to evolution. Evolution’s problem is to change one species into another species. Gould extols Theodosius Dobzhansky as “the greatest evolutionist of our century,” but it is Dobzhansky himself who dismisses Gould’s argument above as irrelevant.

Concerning the fruit flies of Gould’s argument, Dobzhansky says mutations “usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. . . . Many mutations are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.”

Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar​—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”​—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25.

For the second of his three classes, Gould offers big mutations: “We have direct evidence for large-scale changes, based upon sequences in the fossil record.” By saying the changes were large scale, one species changing into another in a few big jumps, he escapes the need for the nonexistent intermediate fossils. But in going from small changes to big jumps, he goes from the frying pan into the fire.

Kristol comments on this: “We just don’t know of any such ‘quantum jumps’ that create new species, since most genetic mutations work against the survival of the individual.” And Gould’s “greatest evolutionist of our century,” Theodosius Dobzhansky, agrees with Kristol. His statement about many mutations being lethal is especially true of large-scale, quantum-jump mutations; also significant are his words that ‘mutations that make big improvements are unknown.’ Lacking evidence for his large-scale changes, Gould falls back on the old timeworn dodge of evolutionists: “Our fossil record is so imperfect.”

...

Source: When a Fact Is Not a Fact (Awake!—1987)

originally posted by: andy06shake

You don't believe in dinosaurs? Despite the fossil records?

Of course I believe in dinosaurs. I was serious when I said my search was unbiased. The age of dinosaurs was simply changed to fit the evolutionary narrative, without evidence to back it. I compiled a list of empirical evidence that dinosaurs lived alongside humankind much more recently than we are told as young children up through adulthood

Dinosaurs lived alongside humans

The answer to all your questions are out there, but I promise evolutionary theory is a dead end on the way out of this maze that we've built.

a reply to: cooperton

Ile entertain the prospect that some species of Dinosaur managed to hang on in certain areas of our planet, possibly surviving until Man came about, but i don't think we would have had much chance whilst the majority of dinosaurs species were in their prime 165/177 million years ago.

The answer to all our questions are out there, but any true glimmer of understanding generally breeds more queries.

I don't think i would wish to exist in a universe where that is any different as it would be rather a boring place to frequent.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: andy06shake

You don't believe in dinosaurs? Despite the fossil records?

Of course I believe in dinosaurs. I was serious when I said my search was unbiased. The age of dinosaurs was simply changed to fit the evolutionary narrative, without evidence to back it. I compiled a list of empirical evidence that dinosaurs lived alongside humankind much more recently than we are told as young children up through adulthood

Dinosaurs lived alongside humans

The answer to all your questions are out there, but I promise evolutionary theory is a dead end on the way out of this maze that we've built.

These shoes never get old, do they Coop!

You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin'
You keep losing when you oughta not bet
You keep samin' when you oughta be a'changin'
Now what's right is right but you ain't been right yet
These boots are made for walking
And that's just what they'll do
One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Raggedyman

I bet they won't address the empirical evidence he gives. Instead they will make bigoted remarks about a general group of people. It's their common evasion tactic from reasonable discourse.

Ah, yes. The infamous Mr. Hovind. A remarkable example of moral turpitude.

In 2006 Hovind was convicted on a 58 count indictment - interfering with the administration of the Internal Revenue laws, failure to pay payroll taxes on the employees, or as he refers to them "missionaries", working for Creation Science Evangelism and structuring, the systematic withdrawal of cash in amounts somewhat less than $10,000 in order to avoid currency reporting requirements. Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison, three years of supervised release and forfeiture of over $400,000 in structured funds.

Property of Creation Science Evangelism was seized in lieu of the funds, which is at the root of Hovind's latest trial. He and his co-defendant Paul John Hansen, a CSE trustee, were charged with contempt of court, fraud and conspiracy in connection with their efforts to affect government title to the property. In March, they were convicted of contempt of court, but the jury did not reach a unanimous verdict on the more serious fraud and conspiracy charges. Retrial on those charges is what is happening on May 18.

Doctor Dino

Independent Baptist minister, Kent Hovind, is a Young Earth Creationist, supporting the notion that there is scientific evidence for a hyper-literal reading of the Book of Genesis. Summing all those begats and tacking on seven days, will give you a world that is about 6,000 years old. Among the implications of YEC is that humans and dinosaurs must have existed contemporaneously. One of Kent Hovind's projects was Dinosaur Adventureland where his version of sound science education could be married to family fun, hence his sobriquet, Doctor Dino.

The Conspiracies

An implication of YEC with more real world consequences is a fairly massive conspiracy, since YEC contradicts "establishment science" in the fields of biology, geology and astronomy. Tony Reed explains the required scale of the conspiracy in the opening video of his series How Creationism Taught Me Real Science

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Counts Thirteen through Fifty-Seven of this Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures to the United States.

2. Upon convictions of any of the violations alleged in Counts Thirteen through Fifty-Seven of this Indictment, the defendants,

KENT E. HOVIND
and
JO D. HOVIND,

Shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) and Title 31, United States Code, Section 5317(c), any and all property, real and personal, involved in the offense alleged in Counts Thirteen through Fifty-Seven and any property traceable thereto.

3. If any of the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; and,

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1) and Title, United States Code Section 5317(c)(1)(B), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendants up to the value of the above-described property.

All in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) and Title 31, Untied States Code, Section 5217(c).

Outcome
On November 2, 2006, Hovind and his wife, Jo, were found guilty by a jury on all counts. On January 19, 2007, Kent was sentenced to 10 years in prison, three years of probation after his sentence is served, and $640,000 in restitution.[1] He had been previously ordered to forfeit $430,400 and faced a maximum of 288 years in prison.[2]

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: richapau

As quoted from an article in one of my earlier comments:

The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
...
...Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. ... who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants ...
...
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar​—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”​—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25.

Some quotations from Dr. Lönnig's website about the Law of Recurrent Variation (compare the expression "oscillation about a mean"), from evolutionary scientists:

"All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax." - William R. Fix

"Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories." - Richard B. Goldschmidt (geneticist. Wikipedia: "He is considered the first to attempt to integrate genetics, development, and evolution.")

"Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." - Pierre-Paul Grassé (who occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris)

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) "I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations." - Lynn Margulis (Wikipedia: "evolutionary theorist and biologist, science author, educator, and popularizer... In 2002, Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science.")

"Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.Lönnig.]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science." - Christian Schwabe (wiki: "professor of biochemistry at Harvard Medical School up until 1971.")