"Dr Christian Schwabe, the non-creationist sceptic of Darwinian evolution from the Medical University of South Carolina (Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), wrote:"

"‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B:167–177)."

I think what he basically saying is that these mutations are as harmful (or more) as they are beneficial, therfore would not be helpful at all in the evolutionary theory.

Aaron summed it up well. Leggless-shrimp. Whoope.
And by the way, babies with 100 legs would be a harmful mutation.

One more thing. I really liked your article. In fact, here is a quote from it:

"Events such as the Cambrian explosion (some 570 million to 500 million years ago) where a huge number of very different organisms arose in a brief window of time would seem to argue that the long and slow accumulation of small changes couldn't explain the rapid diversification of bodies in that there just isn't enough time."

That supports my point. Now, either you believe both this quote and the other information, or you believe neither. You can't pick and chose. So, do you believe the quote I just used? KC2GWX 73's

• Who has ever said that mutations can't be negative? - richard - June 3, 2002 - 15:04 UTC
  • Not me. That is the point. - kc2gwx - June 3, 2002 - 15:17 UTC
    • Drastic mutations can help - richard - June 3, 2002 - 16:34 UTC
      • Ok. - kc2gwx - June 3, 2002 - 18:09 UTC
        • I get my evidence from reading and experience. - richard - June 3, 2002 - 19:14 UTC
          • Good. - kc2gwx - June 3, 2002 - 21:39 UTC
            • Respect - richard - June 3, 2002 - 22:17 UTC
              • They publish. - kc2gwx - June 3, 2002 - 22:45 UTC
                • Nice ICR page - richard - June 4, 2002 - 02:14 UTC
          • Yes or no please. - kc2gwx - June 4, 2002 - 01:23 UTC
            • Alright, I've read the article. - richard - June 4, 2002 - 14:43 UTC
              • Why didn't you say so before? - kc2gwx - June 4, 2002 - 16:29 UTC
                • I accidently linked to another website - richard - June 5, 2002 - 00:35 UTC