Joined: Jan. 2006
Luskin cites a paper from a random (retired) agronomist:
|Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...|
I don't know about these "mutation breeding programs", but I don't see how this proves anything. Artificial selection is still widely undergone in agriculture, and it has led to the varieties we have today (compare these to the wild ancestors and see the difference).
Now, artificial selection is even assisted by molecular markers, so we have direct evidence that the selected trait is encoded by variations localized on the chromosomes. So unless that guy suggests that artificially selected variation is designed (maybe God caused the variation, heh?), I'm not sure what he's up to.
Regarding his argument about new systematic species... He doesn't seem to know how species form.