It is not out of context,what Iam implying is that mutation is not beneficial, since out of 1000 only only one is succesful,that is the real reason why I qoute Sagan.
No, no that was not what your original post said or implied.
This is what you originally said in
Message 91Traste writes:
That process is not really good, infact astronomer Carl Sagan once said mutation is "lethal".
Your implication here is that Sagan was saying all mutations were lethal. You can try to claim otherwise but that is the clear implication of what you said. You would not have mentioned it if you did not want it to be taken that way.
Oh were you able to find the original source for him saying that. I do not see that you ever provided one. I am not saying you don't have one but I would love to see the context.
I know also that qoute,he is implying that mutation serve as a "raw material for evolution" but they cannot because most of them as he wrote are "lethal"
How does the fact most mutations are lethal mean that they cannot be the raw materials for evolution? Please explain how this works. I mean more than just you assert it is so. I guess evidence is what I mean.
Does the qoute most of them are "lethal" means to you all mutations are lethal? Or you are just so defensive that is why you cannot comprehend properly.
Your habit of making personal attacks when you cannot make an argument is getting very wearying. Do you think maybe you can support your arguments instead of lashing out? You have been caught misrepresenting Carl Sagan and have yet provided no evidence to show your side. You might want to try to or acknowledge you argument was flawed. Or maybe you might want to just lash out with personal attacks again.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts