"beneficial mutations"

[JohnR7]

quote maryann I am surprised that Wade recommended going to PubMed's web site to find 800 or so examples of beneficial mutations. Typing in "beneficial mutations" simply gives one examples of articles that happen to contain the two words "beneficial" and "mutations" somewhere in the same article. They have nothing to do with each other. The word "beneficial" is usually in regard to a treatment for a patient with a harmful mutation.

All of evolutionary science hinges on one tiny little thing right now. What they call a "beneficial mutation". This is their Achilles' heel to be sure because to actually find a "beneficial" mutation turns out to be a very elusive butterfly.

The general rule of thumb in science is that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So for something so pivotal for evolutionary theory, then we are going to need some extraordinary evidence. The evidence must exists in the evolutionary fantasy and fairly tale book, because it does not seem to exist on the PubMed's web site.

Anyways we have a thread started so we may as well have a discussion on beneficial mutations. Anyone have any evidence for them? Other then to try to claim that harmful mutations are really beneficial somehow. It could be that it would be easier to find evidence for big foot, then to try and find evidence for a mutation that is benificial and not harmful.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

There have been plenty of threads on this board with plenty of examples of beneficial mutations. Yes, beneficial mutations are quite rare, but no they are not non-existent.

Some general pages with examples:

Examples of Beneficial mutations and natural selection

Examples of Beneficial mutations in humans

Some specific examples (some of which I had gleaned from PubMed in the past, so it's a lie to suggest there aren't any examples there):

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations

Adaptation of Spirogyra insignis (Chlorophyta) to an extreme natural environment (sulphureous waters) through preselective mutations

Identification of mutations conferring insecticideinsensitive AChE in the cotton-melon aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover

Glyphosate Resistance in Another Plant

 

[JohnR7]

There have been plenty of threads on this board with plenty of examples of beneficial mutations. Yes, beneficial mutations are quite rare, but no they are not non-existent.

You gave a lot of links and when I looked I saw evidence that could be used to support Darwin' theory of natural selection. But I did not find any evidence for benificial mutations.

I will continue to search. Trying to find a benifical mutation is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

No one questions that the universe has the ability to be able to fine tune itself. We just question if the current edition of the theory of evolution is the best theory to explain that process.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You gave a lot of links and when I looked I saw evidence that could be used to support Darwin' theory of natural selection. But I did not find any evidence for benificial mutations.

Then you need to look again. Somehow I don't think you have had that comprehensive a read in the 10 mins or so since I posted those.

 

[JohnR7]

Then you need to look again. Somehow I don't think you have had that comprehensive a read in the 10 mins or so since I posted those.

Ok, how much time do you think would be fair for me to spend on trying to find some evidence of a benificial mutation in the data you provided?

 

[notto]

Ok, how much time do you think would be fair for me to spend on trying to find some evidence of a benificial mutation in the data you provided?

More than 13 minutes. It's okay to ask questions if you don't understand what you are reading but don't dismiss it just because you don't understand it.

The links provide evidence (thanks Pete) of direct observation of beneficial mutations in multiple scenarios. Your 'Achilles Heel' is nonexistent and your extrordinary evidence has been given.

You can now proceed with your goal post shiifting, right on schedule.

 

[JohnR7]

You can now proceed with your goal post shiifting, right on schedule.

The materal says: "Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find."

They are not only rare and difficult to find, it is like looking for a needle in a haystack and you want me to do the looking for you. If you can not find them, then how do you expect me to?

All of evolutionary theory pivots on what science says is "rare and difficult to find". The mutation theory will be falsifed, it is just a matter of time before they realize that life is not based on something rare and difficult.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I think the real problem is that you don't know enough about biology (particularly evolutionary biology) to recognize what you are asking for when you are given it.

 

[Split Rock]

All of evolutionary science hinges on one tiny little thing right now. What they call a "beneficial mutation". This is their Achilles' heel to be sure because to actually find a "beneficial" mutation turns out to be a very elusive butterfly.

The general rule of thumb in science is that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So for something so pivotal for evolutionary theory, then we are going to need some extraordinary evidence. The evidence must exists in the evolutionary fantasy and fairly tale book, because it does not seem to exist on the PubMed's web site.

Anyways we have a thread started so we may as well have a discussion on beneficial mutations. Anyone have any evidence for them? Other then to try to claim that harmful mutations are really beneficial somehow. It could be that it would be easier to find evidence for big foot, then to try and find evidence for a mutation that is benificial and not harmful.

I have already given you the example of the evolution of resistance to the herbicide glyphosate from different beneficial mutations found in different weed populations. As usual, you ignore information that does not agree with your paradigm, and then ask for it again in a new thread. Sad...

 

[Split Rock]

OK, here it is One More Time...

Glyphosate has been in use since 1974, and there was NO resistance known for many years. In fact some scientists believed that evolution of resistance was unlikely due to glyphosate's mechanism of action.(http://www.msstate.edu/Entomology/v7n2/art16.html)

It was not until 1998 that resistance was first reported in Australian ryegrass and this resistance was conveyed by a single nuclear gene. (http://wahri.agric.uwa.edu.au/single gene.html) We know for a fact that genes can mutate and that this resistance was never seen before.

Resistance in a goosegrass population found in Malaysia is due to a single amino acid substitution.
"In susceptible plants, glyphosate binds with the EPSPS enzyme thereby preventing the formation of key aromatic amino acids required to build proteins needed to sustain the plant's life. In the resistant goosegrass, the EPSPS enzyme has a single amino acid substitution (proline to serine change) in the region of the EPSPS enzyme where glyphosate normally binds, thus preventing glyphosate from binding. Thus, the formation of the amino acids continues normally and plants do not die." (http://www.biotech-info.net/glyphosate_resist.html)

 

[JohnR7]

I think the real problem is that you don't know enough about biology (particularly evolutionary biology) to recognize what you are asking for when you are given it.

I know when I have found it. The problem is that they are difficult to find. One example would be with the research they have been doing on cholesterol. They seem to have found a benificial "mutation" there. But so often it looks like you have something at face value but then when you look into it some more, it just does not pan out. This happened with the retro virus. At first it looked like there was something of some substance there. But then as they began to look into it the results were just not as consistant as they hoped they would be. Not all the retrovirus showed up where they needed them to show up to verify their theory.

 

[XTE]

You should go ask a crop duster about beneficial mutations.

Natural selection makes it so that NATURE does the selecting. The environment that the genes are placed in filters out those that won't survive there. You survive because the environment allows you to and you are what you are because of the environment accordingly.

One thing that YECs have is a 6000 year old universe which doesn't provide enough time at all. If they could move outside of this they wouldn't have much difficulty. One thing that can help eleviate the big number of time is a big number of quantity. Crop dusting helps us here. Now we have genes thrown off in the millions or even billions per acre and the chance of mutation within these is far greater than any city in the US(ON AN ACRE!)

So crop dusters have this pesiticide that iradicates these insects we'll call Borms. The borms sure enough all die for about a year and a half and then all of a sudden you see that you are only kill 90 percent of them, then 70 percent, then ONLY 40 percent until it's absolute zero. These borms look the same in every way, except that they have evolved to be resistant to the current pesticides through a "beneficial mutation."

The word Mutant has been drug through the mud. If I developed the ability to jump 10 feet up in the air then I would be a mutant and would have had some mutation involved. Is it beneficial? You bet, most of America likes Basketball and they pay thier players handsomely as well. I'd be a shoe-in even if I were 4 foot tall as long as I could jump 10 feet high.

There is 7 percent of the human population today that couldn't catch HIV if they tried! These things happen.

http://pmo.umext.maine.edu/apple/AppPestRept/AppPestRept-2004-05-29.htm

There is a link that confirms industries understanding of mutations clearly spelt out in the 2nd paragraph. They stress decades like it's a long time too.

That's the nature of large numbers.

If you are YEC and think this universe came about a little over 6000 years then you have a foundation that won't let you look outside of it and frankly in my open a completely unrealistic one. I hope this isn't the case with you.

 

[JohnR7]

So crop dusters have this pesiticide that iradicates these insects we'll call Borms. The borms sure enough all die for about a year and a half and then all of a sudden you see that you are only kill 90 percent of them, then 70 percent, then ONLY 40 percent until it's absolute zero. These borms look the same in every way, except that they have evolved to be resistant to the current pesticides through a "beneficial mutation."

You have failed to demostrate a mutation. God creates things this way from the very beginning of time. They do not mutate and become that way over time. In fact you use the figure 90%. You have just put us into the realm of remenant theology. We know that God always preserves a remenant onto himself to repopulate the earth.

That is the problem, they do not have classes on remenant theology or covenant theology like they use to. People just do not seem to study the Bible like they use to study it.

Genesis is a story of how God repopulated and replenished the earth. Noahs story is a story on how God replenished and repopulated the earth. I can not teach the whole course here, but that is how God does things. That is how He works with man on the earth.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I know when I have found it. The problem is that they are difficult to find. One example would be with the research they have been doing on cholesterol. They seem to have found a benificial "mutation" there. But so often it looks like you have something at face value but then when you look into it some more, it just does not pan out.

Sure, right, whatever. You've been given examples, if you want to ignore/dismiss/whatever them, I don't really care.

Beneficial mutations exist and have been discovered with or without your approval.

 

[XTE]

Sure, right, whatever. You've been given examples, if you want to ignore/dismiss/whatever them, I don't really care.

Beneficial mutations exist and have been discovered with or without your approval.

Yeah, I give up on this guy too. He seems to start most of the threads so I question his motives especially after viewing the topic.

In his mind I think he thinks he has his arguments in a row and it's a real shame he can't look outside of himself.

God help ya JohnR7, you won't be wasting my time.

 

[jwu]

I am surprised that Wade recommended going to PubMed's web site to find 800 or so examples of beneficial mutations. Typing in "beneficial mutations" simply gives one examples of articles that happen to contain the two words "beneficial" and "mutations" somewhere in the same article. They have nothing to do with each other. The word "beneficial" is usually in regard to a treatment for a patient with a harmful mutation.

Interesting. When i searched for beneficial mutations on pubmed i got 1096 results.

When i searched for the literal string "beneficial mutation", with nothing allowed in between these two words, i still got 136 results.

So either this person has no idea how to use the search engine on pubmed or is just plain lying.

 

[notto]

They are not only rare and difficult to find, it is like looking for a needle in a haystack and you want me to do the looking for you. If you can not find them, then how do you expect me to?

'rare and difficult to find' is different than 'non-existent and unfound'.

Nobody is asking you to find any mutations. They have been found for you. You are just being asked to review the material you have been provided, ask questions on what you don't understand and quit making statements about what you have been provided that are not true or that are simply unsupported assertions based on what you would like to be true instead of what is demonstratably real.

 

[h2whoa]

The other interesting point to note is that the age of genetics has only really been developing over the last 50 years. The age of sequencing over the last 20 or so years and the age of genomics over the last 5-10 years. So really it's pretty amazing that any beneficial mutations are found.

It is hard to identify ancestral beneficial mutations because they become fixed in the population and represent the large proportion of genotype frequency. Therefore when we see a detremental allele in an orgaanism there is a reasonable chance that this actually represents the ancestral wild-type allele but which has gradually lost out to the beneficial mutation. Given that working with ancient DNA is exceptionally difficult at this point in time it is currently impossible to do a full genomic comparisson on ancestral DNA which is why we rely on evolutionary relationships for our inferences.

Given that we are talking about 4 billion years of genetic variation, the age of genetics and genetic analysis is very new. However, even in the small time that it has had (even compared to the age of the Theory Of Evolution), it has already immeasurably strengthened the theory.

 

[c'mon sense]

I know when I have found it. The problem is that they are difficult to find.

John, the term "mutation" is being turned into a strawman through frequent misuse by insuficiently informed people.

Yeah, beneficial mutations are hard to find in a multi-billion corporation such as the human body alright. But they are far easier to be observed in simpler organisms, as I'm sure you are well aware of. Common pathogenes mutate and evolve all the time, such that at present there is an arms race between the drugs industry and micro-organisms that casually infect us.

You would "sin" a lot less, if you used "variation" instead of "mutations", which is abundant and can be seen with the naked eye, just like natural selection ever so often does. That "variation" is a result of "mutation" is an intellectual luxury reserved for people who actually know what they're talking about. Till you join their group, I suggest you refrain from abusing terms you do not have in your grasp.

 

[Apos]

You have failed to demostrate a mutation. God creates things this way from the very beginning of time. They do not mutate and become that way over time.

Now that is ridiculous: you are denying that there are ANY mutations at ALL? There plainly are., and anyone that would deny it is plainly off the trolley track on even basic biology.

And the fact is, if there are harmful mutations, then logically there HAVE to also be beneficial mutations, because mutation is random: it doesn't know enough to always only choose harmful directions. Any bad thing a mutation can do another mutation can undo.