Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 01-14-2002, 07:50 AM

"Dr. H.J. Muller, who won the Nobel prize for his work on mutations said: "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" (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 11:331)."
<a href="http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm" target="_blank">http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm</a>

Is this yet another misquote or did a Nobel Prize winner actually say this?

[Edited by Oolon for link to reference]

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

hezekiah jones · 01-14-2002, 08:21 AM

He was probably talking about genetic mutations brought about by exposure to massive doses of x-ray radiation?

<a href="http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-bio.html" target="_blank">Here is his biography</a>.

Quote:

He then (1920) returned to Texas, this time to the University, at Austin, as Associate Professor, and from 1925 on as Professor, teaching mainly genetics and evolution, and doing research mainly on mutation.

.....

At the same time he put forward the conception of the gene as constituting the basis of life, as well as of evolution, by virtue of its possessing the property of reproducing its own changes, and he represented this phenomenon as the cardinal problem of living matter.

....

[Muller's research] include[d] studies on the mechanisms of the gene mutation effects and of the structural changes, on the roles which each kind of changes, when spontaneously occurring, play in evolution, and on the properties of genes and of chromosome parts (e.g. eu- versus hetero-chromatin), as disclosed by studies in which the chromosomes were broken and rearranged.

"Creation scientists" are citing this guy? Hmm.

Edited to add:

Quote:

He was President of the ... American Humanist Association during 1956-1958. He has received ... the Darwin-Wallace Commemoration Medal (1958). He was ... designated Humanist of the Year by the <a href="http://www.americanhumanist.org/skeptical/creationism.html" target="_blank">American Humanist Association</a> in 1963.

Hmm. Hmm. HMMM!

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

Writer@Large · 01-14-2002, 08:46 AM

Quote:

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

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

Oolon Colluphid · 01-14-2002, 08:56 AM

Whatever the hell it is, it's popular among creationists. Google brought up 25 references in response to searching "good ones are so rare" and Muller -- each and every one a creationist site.

Since Muller ought to know what he was talking about, and since even I can see ways in which that quote is cobblers, I guess it must be out of context -- most likely, arguing against something (other than evolution).

Oolon

Writer@Large · 01-14-2002, 09:04 AM

Okay ... further searching reveals this to be a cretinist favorite. The quote is all over the net. And I found a "reliable" cite in one of them: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Vol. 11, No. 9, November 1955, p.331, titled "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution." Which explains whi it didn't come up in FirstSearch--the FS database doesn't go back that far. Of course, we all know that another favorite Cretinist tactic is to find horrendously old, outdated quotes from not-quite-relevant sources (I'm willing to bet dollars for donuts that the article refers to the effects of nuclear power plants and/or weapons on local environments).

--W@L

CodeMason · 01-14-2002, 09:54 AM

Read his Nobel lecture here (thanks hezekiah): <a href="http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-lecture.html" target="_blank">http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-lecture.html</a> - it certianly does not say what the creation propagandist would have you believe, and does actually make for a very interesting read.

Arrowman · 01-14-2002, 02:03 PM

I came across a similar misquote last year - see the story here:

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm" target="_blank">http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm</a>

So you might find it a good approach to contact Dr Muller and ask for his "take". My experience, as documented in the link above, is that a scientist is always willing to clarify his position when misrepresented.

hezekiah jones · 01-14-2002, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrowman:
So you might find it a good approach to contact Dr Muller and ask for his "take".

Sadly, he has "passed over," as John Edward would say.

Arrowman · 01-14-2002, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
Sadly, he has "passed over," as John Edward would say.

Whoops. Better ask John Edward then.

CodeMason · 01-14-2002, 03:43 PM

Good idea, but I'd also like to ask Einstein what his opinion on string theory is, and what Darwin thinks of Behe.

01-14-2002, 07:50 AM	#1
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	Another misquote? "Dr. H.J. Muller, who won the Nobel prize for his work on mutations said: "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" (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 11:331)." <a href="http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm" target="_blank">http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm</a> Is this yet another misquote or did a Nobel Prize winner actually say this? [Edited by Oolon for link to reference] [ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

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

01-14-2002, 08:56 AM	#4
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Whatever the hell it is, it's popular among creationists. Google brought up 25 references in response to searching "good ones are so rare" and Muller -- each and every one a creationist site. Since Muller ought to know what he was talking about, and since even I can see ways in which that quote is cobblers, I guess it must be out of context -- most likely, arguing against something (other than evolution). Oolon

01-14-2002, 09:04 AM	#5
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Okay ... further searching reveals this to be a cretinist favorite. The quote is all over the net. And I found a "reliable" cite in one of them: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 11, No. 9, November 1955, p.331, titled "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution." Which explains whi it didn't come up in FirstSearch--the FS database doesn't go back that far. Of course, we all know that another favorite Cretinist tactic is to find horrendously old, outdated quotes from not-quite-relevant sources (I'm willing to bet dollars for donuts that the article refers to the effects of nuclear power plants and/or weapons on local environments). --W@L

01-14-2002, 09:54 AM	#6
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	Read his Nobel lecture here (thanks hezekiah): <a href="http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-lecture.html" target="_blank">http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-lecture.html</a> - it certianly does not say what the creation propagandist would have you believe, and does actually make for a very interesting read.

01-14-2002, 02:03 PM	#7
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	I came across a similar misquote last year - see the story here: <a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm" target="_blank">http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm</a> So you might find it a good approach to contact Dr Muller and ask for his "take". My experience, as documented in the link above, is that a scientist is always willing to clarify his position when misrepresented.

01-14-2002, 03:43 PM	#10
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	Good idea, but I'd also like to ask Einstein what his opinion on string theory is, and what Darwin thinks of Behe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.