I'm really interested in the thought processes which would drive an amateur to think that they've overturned well established science because they've been able to dig up one paper which might show an exception to that science.
Many papers state that there are mostly small deleterious effects from mutations. What some class as neutral affects is actually a creature tolerating the deleterious effect but they are still small deleterious effects. What has been classed as a benefits usually comes at a cost to fitness and over the long run will gradually build up and have a greater negative effect. But I am surprised you say that I have supplied only 1 paper. In the time we have been debating I must have supplied at least 5 or 6 which shows how you dismiss these papers. IE
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the
deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. - PubMed - NCBI
Harmful mutations can fly under the radar
Every time a cell divides, genetic errors can occur, leading to variations in the DNA sequence that may proliferate and—in some cases—cause disease. Now that genetic sequencing and other technologies have made it easier to recognize mutations that occur in only a subset of cells,
researchers are finding more and more harmful mutations hidden among unaffected cells. These findings suggest that in some cases, standard genetic tests in the clinic may be overlooking the underlying cause of genetic disease and underestimating a person's risk of passing such mutations on to their children.
Harmful mutations can fly under the radar | Science
Harmful protein-coding mutations in people arose largely in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years
Over 86 percent of the harmful protein-coding mutations of this type arose in humans just during the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. Some of the remaining mutations of this nature may have no effect on people, and a few might be beneficial, according to the project researchers. While each specific mutation is rare, the findings suggest that the human population acquired an abundance of these single-nucleotide genetic variants in a relatively short time.
http://www.nature.com/news/200.....9.864.html
So the above paper is more or less showing that for 100s of thousand of years maybe millions human hardly received any harmful mutations and then in the last few thousand years we have received most of our DNA damage from mutations. This must be a surprise to supporters of evolution as they believe humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years.
Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and “the first rule of adaptive evolution”
I show that by far the
most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the prominence of such mutations.
Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and "the first rule of adaptive evolution". - PubMed - NCBI
Mutations Accelerate Each Other’s Damage (my emphasis)
Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation
These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that
diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.
Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation | Science
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of
Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect.
Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness,
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population | Science
Robustness–epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein
Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic—once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/nature05385.html
“Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations leads to speciation.”
Lynn Margulis - Acquiring Genomes [2003], p. 29.
Microbial Muddles
Beyond A ‘Speed Limit’ On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Excerpt: Shakhnovich’s group found that
for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism’s rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....172753.htm
Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations?
Abstract……It is argued that, although
most if not all mutations detected in mutation accumulation experiments are deleterious, the question of the rate of favourable mutations (and their effects) is still a matter for debate.
http://www.nature.com/hdy/jour.....7270a.html
So heres a few and there's plenty more if you want. So it aint just one paper.
