Artic Fox, Polar Bears, White Owls...

[txviper]

pritishd,

 

“So would you still persist on the line that all mutations are random?”

 

Yes I would. Anything beyond this flirts with metaphysics and is wholly unacceptable. All the mutations are chance DNA replication errors and selection and its variations preserve or dispatch the results. This is not hard to document. Evolutionists, though, have a hell of a time staying on track with this.

 

The mutations problems are a stake in the heart of the theory. In summary, if any evolution really occurred, it only produced a formidable system that is designed to specifically prevent evolution. A really glorious paradox.

 

 

“But we have found fossils and bone remains of animals which are extinct, and the resembles of these extinct species to the current living ones is too uncanny, eg Mammoth, Sabretooth etc(I am sure others can add on)”

 

It is what has not been found that is problematic.

 

 

”…..75% of the exposed surface of the earth is covered by sedimentary “rock” thousands of feet deep. Where did all of this sediment come from? What accounts for changes in color and substance that distinguish the layers that are supposedly identifying great time periods?

 

Well what sort of answer are looking for?.....”

 

A reasonable one. The question is not complicated. The few answers I have received have always been interesting.

 

While your researching, here is another one that I irritated my 9th grade science teacher with. How did rattlesnakes formulate and produce proteins that are specifically designed to be deadly to its prey without doing toxicology analyses?

 

 

”I would say even Catholics are christians.”

 

Oh, in many cases so would I.

 

 

”He [Christ] referred matter-of-factly to the Genesis record.

Did he give any specifics? If not? why?”

 

He was mission-oriented. He was not here to teach science class.

 

 

”…viewpoints that cancel or nullify entire books and chapters are a breach in my view.

But you have no problems when they nullify whole verses.”

 

I don’t know what you mean here.

 

 

”The colloseum is a good place to go, cause you are sort of protected from personal bashing.”

 

If I can find the time, I will visit.

 

I am not the least bit shocked or bothered by personal insults. I have a very thick hide. Boorish behavior can indicate a lot of things. A peasant mentality, search for relevance, etc.

 

 

”I can show you ten verses from the bible, which are meant to be taken literal, but you are gonna say it is symbolic because you would not personally like it.”

 

Shoot. Or rather shoot when I can discuss this stuff in a more appropriate thread.

 

 

“For Jesus Transubstantiation was meant to be literal”

 

Nah, it’s a Catholic thing. Not totally unrelated to seeing Christ on the cross in Catholic churches, which I find quite vulgar.

 

A more overlooked aspect of the person and work of Christ is a juxtaposition of the Levitical sacrifices with the crucifixion. In the OT, the blood was literal and the sacrifice was figurative. In the NT, the blood is figurative, and the sacrifice was literal. There is a lot of confusion about the blood of Christ. Have you ever read in Psalm 22 (a thousand years prior to the event), “They pierced my hands and feet”? One Levitical anticipation of this (4:25) is “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the [four] horns of the altar…” The imagery is quite stirring.

 

I slipped. No more theology here.

 

 

”Did the mechanism of adaptibility/micro-evolution come from creationism?”

 

Of course not. Creationism is an application, not a source.

 

 

“Virtually all of pharmacetical and a majority of medical literature is based on these two principles that was expounded by evolutionary thinking.”

 

Hardly. This is tantamount to an urban myth.

 

 

"It is the evolutionists who are disappointed in the fossil record.

Any statistic to back up your claim"

 

Plenty, but it’s late and I’m tired.

 

 

"Day 6.

Have creationist found overwhelming evidence of Humans and dinosaur coexisting?"

 

 

No.

 

 

"Perhaps you could request ICR to conduct such experiments since it seems that they have plenty of money to run their campaign."

 

I probably haven’t spent 20 minutes all told at their site. I don’t know who funds them.

[Godless Dave]

All the mutations are chance DNA replication errors and selection and its variations preserve or dispatch the results.

 

That's exactly right. You seem to be catching on.

[SkepticOfBible]

All the mutations are chance DNA replication errors and selection and its variations preserve or dispatch the results.

 

How is that different to what I said? Could you clarify the following for me.

 

Is cause of the Mutation random or due to environmental pressure?

 

This is not hard to document.

 

true and there is documented evidence for above

 

The mutations problems are a stake in the heart of the theory. In summary, if any evolution really occurred, it only produced a formidable system that is designed to specifically prevent evolution. A really glorious paradox.

 

Please clarify more.

 

“But we have found fossils and bone remains of animals which are extinct, and the resembles of these extinct species to the current living ones is too uncanny, eg Mammoth, Sabretooth etc(I am sure others can add on)”

 

It is what has not been found that is problematic.

 

Says who?And why do you discount the example that I gave you

 

So according to creationists when the Mammoth, Sabretooth tiger and dinosaur got instinct, and why?

 

I know Darwin said a lot fossils needs to be found so that his theory needs to be true, but I am pretty sure he was not aware of "fossil fuels", nor did he know that fossils are very rare to be found, because of the conditions involved for fossil formation.

 

A reasonable one. The question is not complicated. The few answers I have received have always been interesting.

 

Could you put present those reply here. I don't want to repeat any answers that is already given to you.

While your researching, here is another one that I irritated my 9th grade science teacher with. How did rattlesnakes formulate and produce proteins that are specifically designed to be deadly to its prey without doing toxicology analyses?

 

So while I research on Geology, you want me to research on biology too?Did you ask other biologist this question?

 

”I would say even Catholics are christians.”

 

Oh, in many cases so would I.

 

Then perhaps one day you could give me a objective defination of a "true christian"?

 

”He [Christ] referred matter-of-factly to the Genesis record.

Did he give any specifics? If not? why?”

 

He was mission-oriented. He was not here to teach science class.

 

Oh really, perhaps he should have, since it is particularly important for the christian world. Jesus had no difficulty in giving high level of precise detail in the following areas

 

*Jesus devotes 36 verses of specific detail on how to decorate and furnish an important ceremonial tent in Exo 26.

*Jesus devotes 42 verses of specific detail on how he wants priests to dress in Exo 28.

*Jesus devotes 46 verses of specific detail on how priests are to be consecrated in Exo 29.

*Jesus devotes 85 verses of specific detail on how offerings are to be made in Lev 1-Lev 4.

*Jesus devotes 38 verses of specific detail on how to deal with mildew(yes, mildew) in Lev 13:47-59 and Lev 14:33-57.

*Jesus devotes 39 verses of specific detail on how the Temple was furnished in 1 Kings 7:13-51.

 

”…viewpoints that cancel or nullify entire books and chapters are a breach in my view.

But you have no problems when they nullify whole verses.”

 

I don’t know what you mean here.

The transubstution was a good example.

 

 

”I can show you ten verses from the bible, which are meant to be taken literal, but you are gonna say it is symbolic because you would not personally like it.”

 

Shoot. Or rather shoot when I can discuss this stuff in a more appropriate thread.

You can rebutt the answer I gave in the other thread.

 

“For Jesus Transubstantiation was meant to be literal”

 

Nah, it’s a Catholic thing.

 

Which is based on scripture?You didn't even read my explanation did you?

 

A more overlooked aspect of the person and work of Christ is a juxtaposition of the Levitical sacrifices with the crucifixion.

 

Jesus fails to fulfill the requirement of a valid sin sacrifice

In the OT, the blood was literal and the sacrifice was figurative. In the NT, the blood is figurative, and the sacrifice was literal.

 

Show me the verse in the OT where it's says that blood was literal and sacrifice was figurative

 

There is a lot of confusion about the blood of Christ. Have you ever read in Psalm 22 (a thousand years prior to the event), “They pierced my hands and feet”?

 

Yes I have. Could you tell me how this is considered a messianic prophecy? Why do you apply only certain veses of Psalm 22 for Jesus and not the rest?What kind of cafeteria style religion is this?

 

Here is the link for the thread

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4151&st=60

 

One Levitical anticipation of this (4:25) is “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the [four] horns of the altar…” The imagery is quite stirring.

 

And did a Levitical Priest come and took the blood of christ with his finger and put it on the altar?

 

And I wonder why you skipped Lev 4:4

 

"He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD"

 

So is Jesus now a bull?

 

And as far as imagery goes, when did this happen to Jesus

 

Lev 4:8-12

"8 He shall remove all the fat from the bull of the sin offering—the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 9 both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys- 10 just as the fat is removed from the ox [a] sacrificed as a fellowship offering. Then the priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering. 11 But the hide of the bull and all its flesh, as well as the head and legs, the inner parts and offal- 12 that is, all the rest of the bull—he must take outside the camp to a place ceremonially clean, where the ashes are thrown, and burn it in a wood fire on the ash heap."

 

Did a priest removed the fat from Jesus?

“Virtually all of pharmacetical and a majority of medical literature is based on these two principles that was expounded by evolutionary thinking.”

 

Hardly. This is tantamount to an urban myth.

 

Ok I'll let my doctor brother know about that.

 

"Have creationist found overwhelming evidence of Humans and dinosaur coexisting?"

No.

 

So on what basis are you claiming that Humans and dinosaur coexisted at the same time?

 

I probably haven’t spent 20 minutes all told at their site. I don’t know who funds them.

 

Well there are other Creationist based research organisations. You can contact them and ask them this question.

 

BTW:YEC spend a lot of time thrashing known dating technique. Have they come up with a better dating techniques?

[txviper]

pritishd,

 

”Is cause of the Mutation random or due to environmental pressure?”

 

The prevailing view among evolutionary theorists is that mutations are random DNA copy errors. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...C1aRandom.shtml

 

 

“… if any evolution really occurred, it only produced a formidable system that is designed to specifically prevent evolution. A really glorious paradox.

Please clarify more.”

 

I’m going to pass on this.

 

 

“But we have found fossils and bone remains of animals which are extinct, and the resembles of these extinct species to the current living ones is too uncanny, eg Mammoth, Sabretooth etc(I am sure others can add on)”

It is what has not been found that is problematic.

”Says who?” ”

 

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)40

 

"Darwin and most subsequent authors including G. G. Simpson have held that most evolutionary transitions occur within established lineages by phyletic gradualism guided by natural selection. But fossil species remain unchanged thoughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition. Similarly, it is difficult to account for the greatly accelerated pace of evolution during periods of adaptive radiation. An alternative model of evolution, that of punctuated equilibria, introduced by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in the early 1970s, more fully accounts for these same observations." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)30

 

"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that, of the half dozen reviews of the On the Origins of Species written by paleontologists that I have seen, all take Darwin to task for failing to recognize that most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, number 1511, 1986, p. 55)32

 

"Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species." (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, volume 116, number 1587, 1987, p. 59) 27

 

"The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214) 28

 

 

“why do you discount the example that I gave you?”

 

I don’t discount them. I just don’t accept your interpretation of them.

 

 

"So according to creationists when the Mammoth, Sabretooth tiger and dinosaur got instinct, and why?"

 

The flood, directly or in the resulting environmental changes after it happened. The earth was tropical, or close to it, to the poles prior to it.

 

 

”nor did he know that fossils are very rare to be found, because of the conditions involved for fossil formation”

 

Fossils are not rare at all. Fossils that would validate evolution are rare to the point of non-existent.

 

 

On the sedimentary rock question:

”A reasonable one. The question is not complicated. The few answers I have received have always been interesting.

Could you put present those reply here. I don't want to repeat any answers that is already given to you.”

 

I’ll withdraw the question. It is a tough one.

 

 

“How did rattlesnakes formulate and produce proteins that are specifically designed to be deadly to its prey without doing toxicology analyses?

So while I research on Geology, you want me to research on biology too?Did you ask other biologist this question?”

 

This one is difficult as well. You can pass on it also.

 

 

”I would say even Catholics are christians.”

Oh, in many cases so would I.

Then perhaps one day you could give me a objective defination of a "true christian"?

 

“My sheep hear My voice…”, “He that believeth….”

 

 

“He was not here to teach science class.

Oh really, perhaps he should have, since it is particularly important for the christian world. Jesus had no difficulty in giving high level of precise detail in the following areas”

 

God has His priorities and people have theirs.

 

 

“For Jesus Transubstantiation was meant to be literal”

Nah, it’s a Catholic thing.

Which is based on scripture? You didn't even read my explanation did you?”

 

Which is based on a Catholic perception of scripture. I reject their interpretation. Catholic dogma maintains that the Eucharist is a bloodless sacrifice. This is simply wrong. The sacrifice happened once. “It is finished” meant exactly that.

 

I have taken communion in Catholic churches several times. I’m not hostile towards Catholics. I just recognize that 1) their doctrine is often an accumulation of errors and 2) the run-of-the-mill Catholic knows little if anything about their own stuff or the Bible. I’ve asked dozens of them what the immaculate conception is about, and I have never, not one single time, ever gotten the right answer. The ones I have talked to are always surprised, if not irritated, when I tell them what it really is.

 

 

”Show me the verse in the OT where it's says that blood was literal and sacrifice was figurative”

 

As with ID, you’re looking for evidence and overlooking the obvious.

 

 

”There is a lot of confusion about the blood of Christ. Have you ever read in Psalm 22

Yes I have. Could you tell me how this is considered a messianic prophecy? Why do you apply only certain veses of Psalm 22 for Jesus and not the rest?”

 

Because, like Paul noted, “prophecy is for believers”. It is profound and explicit enough to eliminate excuses and enigmatic enough to provide them if that’s what someone wants. Unbelievers loathe prophecy because it over-rides natural explanation. Only God can steer human history to a conclusion that He revealed in advance. I'll post in the Coliseum prophecy thread soon.

 

 

"And did a Levitical Priest come and took the blood of christ with his finger and put it on the altar?

 

All of the sacrifices, and the seven feasts for that matter, have meanings. They were forward looking. They are about something.

 

 

"So on what basis are you claiming that Humans and dinosaur coexisted at the same time?"

 

Day 6. But I do understand the strong points of the gap theorists and their contention that the earth is quite old and dinosaurs were part of an earlier creation.

 

 

"BTW:YEC spend a lot of time thrashing known dating technique. Have they come up with a better dating techniques?"

 

We think so. Why is pointing out soft spots in techniques considered “trashing” if it comes from creationists? I hear all the time that science is self-critical and scrutinizing, ever-ready to bend with new data and the best interpretation of data? If you notice, the TOE has undermined a lot of this objectivity. Just about anything can be considered as a possibility as long as it is supportive of the theory.

[crazy-tiger]

pritishd,

 

”Is cause of the Mutation random or due to environmental pressure?”

 

The prevailing view among evolutionary theorists is that mutations are random DNA copy errors. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...C1aRandom.shtml

Didn't read that page, did you?

Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

 

Even the page you link to contradicts you...

"So according to creationists when the Mammoth, Sabretooth tiger and dinosaur got instinct, and why?"

 

The flood, directly or in the resulting environmental changes after it happened. The earth was tropical, or close to it, to the poles prior to it.

And the proof of that is? That's right... there is none!

 

On the other hand, there's a hell of a lot of evidence that proves your little claim wrong...

”nor did he know that fossils are very rare to be found, because of the conditions involved for fossil formation”

 

Fossils are not rare at all. Fossils that would validate evolution are rare to the point of non-existent.

Would that be rare as in "120 occurances per cell" or do you have a different definition now?

"So on what basis are you claiming that Humans and dinosaur coexisted at the same time?"

 

Day 6. But I do understand the strong points of the gap theorists and their contention that the earth is quite old and dinosaurs were part of an earlier creation.

And your proof is? Oh yes... the Bible. And your proof that the Bible is correct?

 

Now, don't make a silly mistake and say it's correct because it's God's word, because the only place you'll find God's word is in the Bible... It would result in your proof of the Bible's correctness being... the Bible.

 

If you're daft enough to use that argument, then try this one... ToE is proof that ToE is correct.

You don't agree? Then don't use the same argument to prove the Bible...

"BTW:YEC spend a lot of time thrashing known dating technique. Have they come up with a better dating techniques?"

 

We think so. Why is pointing out soft spots in techniques considered “trashing” if it comes from creationists? I hear all the time that science is self-critical and scrutinizing, ever-ready to bend with new data and the best interpretation of data? If you notice, the TOE has undermined a lot of this objectivity. Just about anything can be considered as a possibility as long as it is supportive of the theory.

First, what is this better technique?

Second, you heard right.

Third, what happens when these possibilities are shown to be wrong? That's right, they get dumped!

 

 

YEC is not "self-critical and scrutinizing, ever-ready to bend with new data and the best interpretation of data" but "Just about anything can be considered as a possibility as long as it is supportive of the theory."

 

What happens when those possibilities are shown to be wrong? That's right, YEC's just keep on vomiting them out as though they are proven truths!

 

 

 

Incidentally...

 

"Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230" is about "Dawkins' disagreements with Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record."

Is he saying it's a problem? Nope. (you've been quote-mining... I warned you before and you said you didn't do that )

 

"Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716" is a book review...

Is he saying it's a problem? Nope, he's pointing out that "According to this major conceptual breakthrough, rapid evolution is typically associated with speciation events that occur cryptically in small isolated populations, often at the edge of a species's geographic range."

(and that's in the same paragraph as your quote... someone's quote-mining, again )

 

"Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, number 1511, 1986, p. 55"

As is the case with most, if not all, of the quotes taken from Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, this passage involves their idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, which postulates that speciation occurs "quickly" (in geologic terms) in small isolated parts of the whole population. If that is true, we would expect examples of modification within species to be rare in the fossil record. Eldredge appears to be chiding paleontologists in the past for having noted, on the one hand, that the finely graded changes, that should have been evident if Darwin's was right that speciation occurred through slow change throughout the entire population, were missing, but failing, on the other hand, to challenge Darwin's idea of how speciation occurs. It is, again, an attempt to use a debate between scientists on a technical issue to unfairly portray the state of the evidence for evolution.

(quote-mining, yet again... )

 

"Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, volume 116, number 1587, 1987, p. 59"

Again, though, this is a discussion of Punctuated Equilibrium and Eldredge's contention that speciation occurs "quickly" (in geologic terms) in small populations and that, if that is true, we would expect examples of "modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species" to be rare. Both he and Gould have noted, however, that they are not completely lacking and that examples of transitionals between higher taxonomic groups are even more common.

( )

 

"Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214"

Here Williamson reiterates and clarifies the points he was making in the paper discussing Punctuated Equilibrium.

 

And he writes:

"But punctuated equilibrium is compatible with much current neo-Darwinian thought."

 

And later on:

"The principal argument in my paper is that when speciation events occur in the Turkana Basin mollusc sequence, they are invariably accompanied by major developmental instability..."

 

So we can see that Williamson isn't criticizing evolution, or all of neo-Darwinism, but one aspect of it, namely gradualism.

(guess what you're guilty of...?)

 

 

 

 

Do you even know what quote-mining is??

[SkepticOfBible]

The other day I was listening to Kent Hovind Debate vs Farell Till about the ark

 

Here are the assertions he made

 

1)Noah was Scientifically advance than us.

 

2)Pangea theory is a false theory, and no way proves that age of the earth is more than a 6000 years

 

3)Petroleum were formed because of the flood.

 

4)The dinosaur existed well unto 15th centuary. His proof, mythological stories about Dragons and people killing the. So Dragons got extinct. I wonder if he thinks that Werewolves and Vampires are real too?

 

5)And he gave a very ad hoc reply to the following "if Noah started with just 8 people, how do you account for the racial diversity in th human race and in the wildlife?"

 

It's a must hear, if you want some laughs.

[Asimov]

The other day I was listening to Kent Hovind Debate vs Farell Till about the ark

 

Here are the assertions he made

 

1)Noah was Scientifically advance than us.

 

2)Pangea theory is a false theory, and no way proves that age of the earth is more than a 6000 years

 

3)Petroleum were formed because of the flood.

 

4)The dinosaur existed well unto 15th centuary. His proof, mythological stories about Dragons and people killing the. So Dragons got extinct. I wonder if he thinks that Werewolves and Vampires are real too?

 

5)And he gave a very ad hoc reply to the following "if Noah started with just 8 people, how do you account for the racial diversity in th human race and in the wildlife?"

 

It's a must hear, if you want some laughs.

 

I think a lot of his assertions were ad hoc. That was one of the first online debates I listened to, and I still laugh when I think about it. I don't even understand why Till bothers.....but then I listen to the debate and understand why. He's such a hack you just gotta fuck with him.

 

I remember listening to a debate where he says "Why don't you ever see something like a nail being created naturally in nature???"

[SkepticOfBible]

I was listening to the part 1 of the debate. He claimed that an biblical archealogist have found proof of the Noah's ark. And guess which archealogist he talks about - Ron Wyatt. I don't believe he is using a evidence which has been proved as a fraud by christians themselves. I really why do creationist even listen to him.

[MrSpooky]

Yes, they are rare. We can have a contest about this if you like. You find neutral scientific literature that says point-blank that they are not, and I will respond to them with quotes that say the opposite.

 

 

Interesting how you didn't address MrSpooky's claim regarding human mutation rates, and regarded his comment with a mere gainsay. I'd like him to cite the information where he got that from.

 

 

Whoops! So sorry. Go away for a couple weeks and this is what happens.

 

I'll look it up as soon as I can. Hell, I'll even try to calculate out how many mutations there should be in the human genome using the pKa of the chemical reactions that cause DNA damage if I can get the resources together.