Beneficial Mutations

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
I did not believe in Evolution ever.

Even though I am one of those evil atheists I actually agree with you.

Like you I also don't believe in evolution. I do however accept evolution as the best explanation we have for the development of life on this Earth. Evolution is backed by a huge accumulation of evidence, the professional judgement of virtually all related scientific institutions and universities, and the vast majority of scientists in the field of biology.

By contrast those who disagree are a trivial minority, have produced no cogent evidence or falsifiable theory, and lack institutional backing.

For an informed Christian view on evolution please visit Biologos at BioLogos – God’s Word. God’s World.
OB
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Youtube presentation by one of the world's most eminent scientists. Yes. If you can hear his arguments and still believe in evolution, you have more faith than I have. I don't believe in ID as proposed by Berlinski and other Deists. I am very simple. In the beginning, God. Created. Why do I believe? God said so. That is good enough for me. I did not believe in Evolution ever. Everything I've heard and read from people like James Tour, Walt Brown and others, including Stephen Meyer, reinforces my scepticism.
I haven’t read any thing by Tour but Walt brown and Meyer, every thing I read from them reinforces my skepticism too as in I don’t believe word they write !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Why do I believe? God said so. That is good enough for me.

Seems good enough for other creationists too. But this is exactly why creationism has failed. It doesn't go beyond "Goddidit" and consequently has nothing to offer as an explanation for anything.

Everything I've heard and read from people like James Tour, Walt Brown and others, including Stephen Meyer, reinforces my scepticism.

I've read a bunch of Meyer's works as well, and quite frankly he's just a hack.

If you limit yourself to the writings of creationists/ID proponents then you're just reinforcing your own echo chamber. If you want to find out why evolution is considered well substantiated, is foundational to modern biology and is an applied science, you'll have to broaden your horizons.

Such knowledge is extremely dangerous to creationists, however, which is why so many avoid it. Hence, why there is an inverse correlation between understanding of evolution and acceptance of it as valid science.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The external covering of all animals--insect exoskeletons, reptile or fish scales, bird feathers, mammalian hair, fur, or bare skin--are all made of the same protein, keratin. The differences are in how the keratin molecules are grouped together. It has been shown experimentally that modification of 5 regulatory modules in the genome of alligator embryos will turn scales into feathers. It's not overly farfetched to postulate that mutations of these regulatory genes in some theropod dinosaurs resulted in feathers. And feathers turned out to be a beneficial mutation. The dinosaurs are thought to have been extincted by the Chicxulub impactor 66 million years ago. It hit the Yucatan peninsula, ejecting enormous amounts of debris into the atmosphere. Along with soot and smoke from massive and prolonged wildfires. This would have blocked sunlight for years, resulting in global cooling. But the feathered theropods had a survival advantage. Because feathers provide better insulation than scales. (We know that down feathers are nature's best insulator for land animals.) And the descendants of the feathered theropods are still with us today as modern birds.

The link is a bit technical, but it outlines the experimental work on the regulatory genes which can change scales into feathers.

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-modern-genomics-alligator-scales-birdlike.html
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano

Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease



Like Sanoy, I don't know what that means.

I like this, do you have any more examples?
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have a question for @sfs and others.
Is it true that in the medical field that all beneficial mutations are simply referred to as polymorphisms while all detrimental mutations are referred to as mutations?

This seems to not make sense to me, but u heard it the other day.

If I had to guess, it would seem that all mutations are what they are, then if they fixate within a population, they become polymorphisms as their frequency of occurance increases, given their beneficial nature.

Does this sound right?
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I have a question for @sfs and others.
Is it true that in the medical field that all beneficial mutations are simply referred to as polymorphisms while all detrimental mutations are referred to as mutations?

No it isn't.

polymorphisms are mutations that occur in a reasonable percentage of the population, > 1%. The only difference between the two is frequency.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No it isn't.

polymorphisms are mutations that occur in a reasonable percentage of the population, > 1%. The only difference between the two is frequency.

Frequency meaning the quantity of people they are found in?

And also, is it fair to say that all polymorphic populations are the product of polymorphisms?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,626
51
✟312,535.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I will dare to beat this dead horse,

What are examples of beneficial mutations that "increase specificity" of proteins and benefit the survival of a species?

Is this a fair question to ask?
Nylon eating bacteria.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,677
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
polymorphisms are mutations that occur in a reasonable percentage of the population, > 1%. The only difference between the two is frequency.
Even that distinction is often ignored -- it's not uncommon to see phrases like "rare single-nucleotide polymorphisms' in the literature. (And yes, 'frequency' refers to how many copies there are in the population.) I've argued against maintaining the distinction, since the threshold is arbitrary and the classification is necessarily population-specific.

Mostly, 'mutation' is used when there is more focus on the origin of the variant, including the effect of the change (e.g. 'nonsense mutation' vs 'silent mutation'), with no implication that the change is detrimental. I usually use 'variant' or 'allele'.

ETA: There was one paper I was an author on that was using 'SNP' (= single nucleotide polymorphism) not only regardless of frequency, but regardless of whether the variant was single-nucleotide or not. That one drove me batty.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
I can see how mutations give rise to physical changes, like scales to feathers. But how do mutations give rise to cognitive systems like flight?
Small step changes in instinct/behaviour. Gliding is an easy step for a habitual jumper and true flight is just steps from that.

On very small sizes it's possible that flying off an adaptation from cooling or swimming organs.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I can see how mutations give rise to physical changes, like scales to feathers. But how do mutations give rise to cognitive systems like flight?
Not quite sure what you're asking, but it may a case of adaptation preceding evolution. Individuals cognitively flexible enough to make advantageous use of an exaggerated morphological trait will have a selective advantage, so both the trait exaggeration and the cognitive resource to make use of it will be selected for. Over generations, mutations that increase the advantage of either (cognitive or morphological) will be mutually reinforcing, selectively.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,677
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I can see how mutations give rise to physical changes, like scales to feathers. But how do mutations give rise to cognitive systems like flight?
Broadly speaking, it's not obvious how genes (instructions to make a particular protein at a particular time and place) translate into complex behavioral and cognitive systems -- but they do. And since they do, changes to those genes or their regulation must be able to change the systems.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Sanoy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums