Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jimmy Higgins · 02-14-2003, 06:33 PM

I was hit by a person with a quote from "H.J. Miller" on mutations from the Atomic Scientist 11:331. Said he won the Nobel Prize. Proves that this means good mutations are virtually nil. I did a lookup and found out its really Hermann Joseph Muller and he won the prize back in '46! You've all probably seen the quote, with its ... snuck in the middle. I was wondering if anyone had the full quotation?

pz · 02-14-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
I was hit by a person with a quote from "H.J. Miller" on mutations from the Atomic Scientist 11:331. Said he won the Nobel Prize. Proves that this means good mutations are virtually nil. I did a lookup and found out its really Hermann Joseph Muller and he won the prize back in '46! You've all probably seen the quote, with its ... snuck in the middle. I was wondering if anyone had the full quotation?

Can you give us at least some piece of the quote to help us figure out what you're talking about?

Albion · 02-14-2003, 08:19 PM

The nearest I could find was this statement:

"The authors of ENCABT take issue with the statement on page 127 of G.B. Johnson�s text, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY): "Mutations act as a source of the variation that is needed for a species to adapt to changing conditions or a new environment, and, thus, evolve over time." The ENCABT response to this statement is reprinted in italics below:

Response: "Most mutations are bad. In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them all as bad." H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, vol. 11 No. 9 (November 1955, p. 331). Dr. Muller is recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work with mutation.

"Mutation never produces anything new. They [mutant fruit flies] had malformed wings, legs and bodies and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies" (Theodosius Dobzhansky [world renowned naturalist and an evolutionist], in Heredity and the Nature of Man. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964. p. 126).
Todd Steck, Associate Professor of Biology at UNC-Charlotte, obtained and examined the two publications cited and responds, "�I was able to find both of the publications cited, yet I could not find the quoted passage in either. Neither quotation is accurate as cited, and neither publication contains even the sentiments of the given quotes. Misquoting articles shows a blatant disregard for the truth. Interestingly, the often quoted statement by Dobzhanski, �Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution,� does appear on p. 115 of his article cited by ENCABT." (see PART II, B)"

from the North Carolina Academy of Science, but it doesn't give the whole quote, it just says it's a misquote.

Albion · 02-14-2003, 08:27 PM

Of course, they don't bother to say that Dr Muller also wrote this:

"The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

Nickle · 02-14-2003, 09:34 PM

Great quote!

Jimmy Higgins · 02-15-2003, 09:07 AM

Albion, you da man. I did find that North Carolina webpage. That looks great for a whole lot of information, but as you said, they really don't show why its a misquote.

However, that quote that you found is spectacular. Thanks.

tgamble · 02-15-2003, 10:47 AM

I asked about this same quote a while back. The response I got here was enlightning....

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...s+rare+harmful

Writer@Large

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong>Is this yet another misquote or did a Nobel Prize winner actually say this?
</strong>

Hard to say. Its certainly mis-cited. I can only find three articles by H.J. Muller from the Bulliten of Atomic Sciences in the FirstSearch database. All of them focus on the politics of nuclear weapons and plants, not on scientific mutations. In fact, the Bulliten of Atomic Sciences as a whole appears to be dedicated to topics of nuclear power, not the benefits of mutations, and cetainly not mutations as they relate to the likelyhood of evolution. Not to mention that the "cite" after the quote is complete gibberish. What does "11:331" mean? Volume 11, Issue 331? Issue 11, page 331? Volume 11, page 331? No interpretation matches the articles I've been able to find thus far; the articles in question appeared in 49.5: 27-29 (1993), 46.6: 28-29 (1990), and 46.3: 14-15 (1990).

Based on all this, I'm guessing it's either a mis-quote or a deliberate selectivly-chopped quote.

--W@L

Quote:

Writer@Large
Administrator

I have it: "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," H.J. Muller, Professor of Genetics at Indiana University, Bulliten of the Atomic Scientists November 1955. And I was right--it *is* an article about mutation related to nuclear energy use. The selected quote comes out of a section on "Characteristics of Natural Point Mutations" and deals with the "genetic changes induced by exposure to radiation from artificial sources" (Muller 330). He's particularly concerned about the effects of radioactive compounds from power plants on humans. It's not an article about the possibilities of evolution.

It's also misquoted. (Go figure.) Here's what cretinists quote:

"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing --- GOOD ONES ARE SO RARE WE CAN CONSIDER THEM ALL BAD"

Here's the actual quote:

Quote:

It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation. According to the conception of evolution based on the studies of modern genetics, the whole organism has its basis in its genes. Of these there are thousands of different kinds, interacting with great nicety in the production and maintinence of the complicated organization of the given type of organism. Accordingly, by the mutation of one of these genes or another, in one way or another, any component structure or function, and in many cases combinations of these components, may become diversely altered. Yet in all except very rare cases the change will be disadvantageous, involving an impairment of function (Muller 331).

Note the "key" part of the cretinist quote, "GOOD ONES ARE SO RARE WE CAN CONSIDER THEM ALL BAD," doesn't appear here. The closest we can come to it is the last sentence of the paragraph,"Yet in all except very rare cases the change will be disadvantageous, involving an impairment of function." Yet Muller goes on to say in the next paragraph:

Quote:

It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation. This could take place only because of the Darwinian principle of natural selection, applying to the genes. That is, on the rare occasions when an accidental mutation did happen to effect an advantageous change, the resultant individual, just because it was aided by that mutation, tended to multiply more than the others (Muller 331).

Hence, once again, the cretinists--who can even make Richard Dawkins sound like an evolution-hater--are selecting and misquoting to make someone say what they never intended to say.

--W@L

I might have posted it at talk.origins but it obviously didn't make the archive. Maybe it never made it to the newsgroup..... I never post there anyway.

RufusAtticus · 02-15-2003, 10:52 AM

Well speaking of quotes, the Bible clearly states that "there is no God."

Albion · 02-15-2003, 11:18 AM

That misquote should certainly make it into the TO files or at least some misquote collection. That is utterly shameful. It couldn't possibly have been produced with any motivation than dishonesty - nobody could come up with it via an honest mistake. Not only is it a paraphrase rather than a quote, but the paraphrase doesn't say what the original says, and the context is different from what the creationists are pretending it is. When a high level of radiation is present, an organism will suffer mutations far too heavily for evolution to even be an issue.

Thanks for the response Jimmy - I'm a woman, not a man, but I appreceiate the vote of confidence!

Jimmy Higgins · 02-15-2003, 05:44 PM

That quote makes much more sense to me. From what I could learn about Muller, he did alot of work late in his career on atomic radiation and genes, aka telling people that the relation isn't a good thing.

Thanks tgamble for tossing in the full quotation. I don't care what everyone in Ontario says, you Newfies are cool.

Like I've said before, what can't you get info on at the Infidels Board?

Albion, sorry bout the mispeak. You the w'man!

I like also your waterfall in Hamilton, Ontario.

02-14-2003, 06:33 PM	#1
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	More misquotes I was hit by a person with a quote from "H.J. Miller" on mutations from the Atomic Scientist 11:331. Said he won the Nobel Prize. Proves that this means good mutations are virtually nil. I did a lookup and found out its really Hermann Joseph Muller and he won the prize back in '46! You've all probably seen the quote, with its ... snuck in the middle. I was wondering if anyone had the full quotation?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2003, 08:19 PM	#3
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	The nearest I could find was this statement: "The authors of ENCABT take issue with the statement on page 127 of G.B. Johnson�s text, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY): "Mutations act as a source of the variation that is needed for a species to adapt to changing conditions or a new environment, and, thus, evolve over time." The ENCABT response to this statement is reprinted in italics below: Response: "Most mutations are bad. In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them all as bad." H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, vol. 11 No. 9 (November 1955, p. 331). Dr. Muller is recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work with mutation. "Mutation never produces anything new. They [mutant fruit flies] had malformed wings, legs and bodies and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies" (Theodosius Dobzhansky [world renowned naturalist and an evolutionist], in Heredity and the Nature of Man. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964. p. 126). Todd Steck, Associate Professor of Biology at UNC-Charlotte, obtained and examined the two publications cited and responds, "�I was able to find both of the publications cited, yet I could not find the quoted passage in either. Neither quotation is accurate as cited, and neither publication contains even the sentiments of the given quotes. Misquoting articles shows a blatant disregard for the truth. Interestingly, the often quoted statement by Dobzhanski, �Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution,� does appear on p. 115 of his article cited by ENCABT." (see PART II, B)" from the North Carolina Academy of Science, but it doesn't give the whole quote, it just says it's a misquote.

02-14-2003, 08:27 PM	#4
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Of course, they don't bother to say that Dr Muller also wrote this: "The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation .... So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words." - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

02-14-2003, 09:34 PM	#5
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	Great quote!

02-15-2003, 09:07 AM	#6
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	Albion, you da man. I did find that North Carolina webpage. That looks great for a whole lot of information, but as you said, they really don't show why its a misquote. However, that quote that you found is spectacular. Thanks.

02-15-2003, 10:52 AM	#8
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Well speaking of quotes, the Bible clearly states that "there is no God."

02-15-2003, 11:18 AM	#9
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	That misquote should certainly make it into the TO files or at least some misquote collection. That is utterly shameful. It couldn't possibly have been produced with any motivation than dishonesty - nobody could come up with it via an honest mistake. Not only is it a paraphrase rather than a quote, but the paraphrase doesn't say what the original says, and the context is different from what the creationists are pretending it is. When a high level of radiation is present, an organism will suffer mutations far too heavily for evolution to even be an issue. Thanks for the response Jimmy - I'm a woman, not a man, but I appreceiate the vote of confidence!

02-15-2003, 05:44 PM	#10
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	That quote makes much more sense to me. From what I could learn about Muller, he did alot of work late in his career on atomic radiation and genes, aka telling people that the relation isn't a good thing. Thanks tgamble for tossing in the full quotation. I don't care what everyone in Ontario says, you Newfies are cool. Like I've said before, what can't you get info on at the Infidels Board? Albion, sorry bout the mispeak. You the w'man! I like also your waterfall in Hamilton, Ontario.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.