Examples of beneficial mutations?

[laptoppop]

Hi,

I'm actually curious here -- what examples are there of beneficial mutations? In other words, not just detrimental mutations which may be helpful in a particular environment, but what the ID folks would call increases in information?

For example, the trilobite has an amazing eye. It pops full featured into the cambrian fossil record without any precursors, as far as I know. Some have guessed that an eye could develop from a spot, into a spot with sensitivities, etc. Also as far as I know - there is no evidence that directly supports that conjecture. Are there any examples of such development that have been observed?

Again, I'm not talking about negative changes that might have a benefit in a particular environment. For example, as I understand it (and I admit I could be wrong), most bacteria mutations are of this form -- changes that give possible benefits under particular conditions (like against particular antibiotics), but not new structures -- not new information. I'm asking about real structural changes in a positive direction.

Thanks!

 

[random_guy]

How can we give an example beneficial mutation in terms of information when the DI doesn't even offer a definition of information? In science, a beneficial mutation is any mutation that helps an organism survive its environment. You have to take the environment in account in order to define beneficial or deterimental. Your challenge is flawed because you're using an unscientific definition of beneficial and genetic information is never defined.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm asking about things that result in new structures. I'll take your answer as "I'm not aware of any" for now.

 

[random_guy]

I'm asking about things that result in new structures. I'll take your answer as "I'm not aware of any" for now.

Then define new structures. For example, the sickle cell allele creates different form of red blood cells. Is this considered new? If you're asking for a structure that never before existed (ex nhilo), then no, because that would falsify evolution. Evolution works on modifying existing structures.

 

[laptoppop]

Are you postulating sickle cell as a postive mutation?

If evolution only works on existing structures, how are new structures formed (according to TE)? I'm asking for examples of positive mutations -- yes even on existing structures.

 

[Mallon]

Does your challenge discount the evolution of beneficial metabolic pathways? If so, then I would point you to the "nylon bug" or to the strain of lactose-tolerant bacterium produced in Barry Hall's experiments.
It also seems that the Ultrabithorax hox mutation, which results in extra insect wings, could be beneficial, given that this condition has come about among insects so many times.

 

[laptoppop]

As I understand it - observed examples of the "extra wings" - such as in fruit flys- result in worse flight, not better - i.e., not demonstrated beneficial.

I don't know enough about the other experiments to comment -- but they seem like metabolic changes, not necessarily structural.

 

[random_guy]

Are you postulating sickle cell as a postive mutation?

Again, it depends on the environment. Pre anti-malaria drugs, having a copy of the sickle cell allele allowed people to survive malaria. Without it, they'd die (and with 2 copies, they'd also end up dying). This is a beneficial mutation without any drugs, and now a harmful mutation with the drugs. You must take environment into account.

Here's another hypothetical example on why the environment must be in account. Suppose it takes energy to manufacture vitamin C. If you end up with a broken copy of the gene, and you have a diet without vitamin C, then it would be a harmful mutation. If you have a diet that's rich in vitamin C, and it's easy to get the vitamin from your food source, it's a good mutation. Without the environment, you'd have a hard time figuring out if it's good or bad.

If evolution only works on existing structures, how are new structures formed (according to TE)? I'm asking for examples of positive mutations -- yes even on existing structures.

New structures come from modifying existing structures, usually through gene duplication. For example, (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but several clotting factors in blood are coded from duplicated genes from other genes.


I'm not sure if this counts as your new structure (since it's very hard to actually observe the structure in the lab due to time scale constraints), but scientists believe that the anti-freeze gene developed from duplicating a gene involved in the pancreas. There's a lot of evidence to back this theory up. An overview can be found here, but read the sources for a more indepth overview.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/3485

Source above.

 

[laptoppop]

The article at the link seems to be postulating as opposed to observing.

Are mutations so infrequent that there are no examples? I thought they were reasonably frequent -- at least in a negative or neutral way.

 

[Xaero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadoma

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html#mutations
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term="beneficial+mutation"



Genetic information is what works in nature. A former nonsense sequence can get beneficial one day by a few mutations.


I will look forward for an easy example of gene duplication with beneficial mutation, would you then accept this as a rise of information?

 

[gluadys]

Hi,

I'm actually curious here -- what examples are there of beneficial mutations? In other words, not just detrimental mutations which may be helpful in a particular environment, but what the ID folks would call increases in information?

Any mutation which is helpful is beneficial.

For example, the trilobite has an amazing eye. It pops full featured into the cambrian fossil record without any precursors, as far as I know. Some have guessed that an eye could develop from a spot, into a spot with sensitivities, etc. Also as far as I know - there is no evidence that directly supports that conjecture. Are there any examples of such development that have been observed?

The evolution of the eye, (and its impact on further evolution) is outlined in Andrew Parker's _ In the Blink of an Eye_. Precursors to trilobites are known.


http://www.amazon.ca/Blink-Eye-Andrew-Parker/dp/0465054382

 

[shernren]

There's the blood clotting system evolved from nearly scratch: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

 

[laptoppop]

Gluadys, please remember the difference between observation and speculation. Speculating a series of soft-bodied precursors (of which there would be no evidence) for the Trilobite eye is not observation, no matter how well told the story is. It might even be true. But it is not an observation.

So saying the precursors are "known" because a possible theoretical channel has been come up with without fossil evidence is a whole lot further than I am willing to stretch.

 

[laptoppop]

There's the blood clotting system evolved from nearly scratch: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev.../Clotting.html

From the conclusion of the article cited:

Now, it would not be fair, just because we have presented a realistic evolutionary scheme, supported by gene sequences from modern organisms, to suggest that we now know exactly how the clotting system has evolved. That would be making far too much of our limited ability to reconstruct the details of the past. But nonetheless, there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be tested and verified against the evidence.

Sorry to be such a stickler, but in this thread I'm looking for observations, not speculations. Are there examples of observed mutations which have been beneficial?

 

[Assyrian]

As I understand it - observed examples of the "extra wings" - such as in fruit flys- result in worse flight, not better - i.e., not demonstrated beneficial.

Fruit flies tell us how extra wings come come about. While the fruit fly may have problems with the extra wings, the dragon fly is an aerial acrobat. Four wings are much better than two, once you get them working properly. But the dragonfly's wings are not controlled simply by a hox gene, there are a lot of other genetic controls involved.

The four winged fruit fly would need similar genetic changed to really benefit from the extra wings. That is one of the problems with our discussion. There are very few structural changes that rely on one mutation.

But the dragon fly show us that extra wings can be really beneficial and the fruit fly show us how insects get the extra pair.

 

[laptoppop]

Fruit flies tell us how extra wings come come about. While the fruit fly may have problems with the extra wings, the dragon fly is an aerial acrobat. Four wings are much better than two, once you get them working properly. But the dragonfly's wings are not controlled simply by a hox gene, there are a lot of other genetic controls involved.

The four winged fruit fly would need similar genetic changed to really benefit from the extra wings. That is one of the problems with our discussion. There are very few structural changes that rely on one mutation.

But the dragon fly show us that extra wings can be really beneficial and the fruit fly show us how insects get the extra pair.

Don't you see the problem in this? If more than the hox gene is required for the wings to be useful, then either all of the required mutations would have to happen at once which makes it much more statistically difficult, or you end up with temporary steps which hurt the organism, and which would be eliminated by natural selection.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, please remember the difference between observation and speculation. Speculating a series of soft-bodied precursors (of which there would be no evidence) for the Trilobite eye is not observation, no matter how well told the story is. It might even be true. But it is not an observation.

Read the book before you judge that it is only speculative. Fossils of soft-bodied animals are rare, but not non-existent. A good part of the book is about Pre-cambrian precursors to Cambrian fauna, such as the Ediacaran fossils. (all soft-bodied).

 

[laptoppop]

Sorry, I'm not going to go out and buy a book like this right now. Are there online sources for the info?

 

[Assyrian]

Don't you see the problem in this? If more than the hox gene is required for the wings to be useful, then either all of the required mutations would have to happen at once which makes it much more statistically difficult, or you end up with temporary steps which hurt the organism, and which would be eliminated by natural selection.

Natural selection is a process, not an absolute and immediate rejection of the less beneficial. Just look at how genetic diseases linger in the human race. So all our four winged mutation has to do is hang on in the gene pool until some of the other mutations come along and turn the four wings into an advantage. It doesn't have to be the statistically improbable all at once, it just needs to hang on during the temporary steps.

 

[busterdog]

Then define new structures. For example, the sickle cell allele creates different form of red blood cells. Is this considered new? If you're asking for a structure that never before existed (ex nhilo), then no, because that would falsify evolution. Evolution works on modifying existing structures.

Since we recently had a thread that questioned whether extra brains were positive or advantageous mutation, and I am not completely in disagreement on that point, I would also raise a question about the OP.