Give me one beneficial mutation.

[USincognito]

1. Mutation - A relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes.

2. A 5 legged horse.

3. Beneficial - Receiving or entitling one to receive an advantage.

Note: A 5 legged horse will not run faster then a 4 legged horse. An advantage would be for a horse to mutate wings and be able to fly. I would trade my car in for one of those bad boys. Scientists, get to work!

Understanding of mutation +1.
Understanding of beneficial +1.
Understanding what a beneficial mutation is - several million.

 

[Mike Elphick]

None the less it is a mutation.

Not necessarily, as in the case of physical damage to the embryo or acquiring body parts from twins. Five-legged cows are an example of a congenital malformation

Congenital disorder or anomaly involves defects in or damage to a developing fetus. It may be the result of genetic abnormalities, the intrauterine (uterus) environment, errors of morphogenesis, infection, or a chromosomal abnormality.

Such disorders are the result of a mixed bag of factors. A few, such as polydactyly (the presence of extra digits or toes) are known to be inherited, but most only have a loose and unknown connection to inherited genetic causes and certainly do not represent the development of a new trait, like half a wing. Some are known to be caused by teratogens like thalidomide.

You might like to read this article:-

A number of different congenital anomalies are known to occur in domestic cattle (Newman et al., 1999; Noh et al., 2003). Congenital abnormalities may be multiple or may affect single parts of organ systems. Multiple congenital anomalies often occur because the malformation of one part of the body leads directly to the malformation of another part (Camon et al., 1990). These anomalies are associated with genetic factors (transgenes, chromosomes), environmental agents (infections, toxins, fertilization techniques, management) or a combination of factors (Keeler et al., 1981; Rousseaux and Ribble, 1988; Newman et al., 1999). Supernumerary ectopic limb(s) (SEL) is a congenital anomaly which is defined as the presence of accessory limb(s) attached to the various body regions.

There would be no 'new gene' coding for an extra limb, if that's what you mean by 'mutation'.

 

[Targ]

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you lack even the most basic understanding of evolution. Yet you think you can overturn an established scientific theory and all the experts in the field? You have to be kidding me right?

This was part of the reason why I, as a former YEC, no longer reject evolution. At first I thought that meh, these guys are just normal people making amateur mistakes. The more I researched though, the more I realised that it's not just average pew-dwellers making mistakes; even the world leading anti-evolutionists (such as Ken Ham, Casey Luskin, Jonathan Sarfati etc) really are amateurish in their arguments, with many of them having little experience in the field of science they criticise, and unsurprisingly therefore make gross misrepresentations in their arguments.

 

[Split Rock]

I challenge an evolutionist to give me evidence of a beneficial mutation. This should be relatively easy considering the theory is based off mutations.

Note: In arithmetic, if you cannot come to the right conclusion of an equation, try another method.

You have been given several examples, but I will give you another: Glyphosate (Roundup) resistance in goosegrass, due to a single point mutation.
http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/

Your O.P. question has now been answered.

 

[pgp_protector]

Blue eyes are beneficial to me, My wife likes em.
Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor

 

[SLP]

Read the other papers, ask biologists, take university courses and learn enough biology to see why there is evidence of beneficial mutations occurring.

What? Ask a biologist a biology question? why on earth would agood YEC need to do something silly like that when we all know that YECs are automatically experts on everything! YEC supply clerks make proclamations in evolutionary genetics, a YEC geologist pontificates on anatomy and physiology - heck, it is what they do!

 

[SLP]

All of these are just using added existing code.

Amazing - I love how the YEC is fully prepared never to admit to something they wich not to be so, and have a ready-made bag o' logically fallacious tricks to employ to help in their journey.

But just to be clear - if there was a MUTATION, which you asked for, then it is NOT, by definition, 'existing code'.

Or don't you even know what a mutation is?

You seem to think it means that a whole new gene must pop out of nowhere or something...

 

[pgp_protector]

So if they weren't born with half wings, I'm assuming you believe it took millions of years to evolve wings. It kept mutating and mutating, generation after generation, and finally grew wings. Do you understand the probabilty of this?

Probability of Wings Evolving in time for some evolutionary paths. = 100%

Evidence.

 

[Cabal]

how about adding any letter besides a, c, g, or t.

I don't really have much time for creationist's....."fluid" definitions, but insertion and duplication mutations followed by deletion/inversion mutations would add additional nucleotides.

ETA: Although I noticed you goalpost moved when this was pointed out. The fact is that duplications would add on additional letters.
ETA^2: I just noticed you wanted letters BESIDES a,c,g,t. Wow. FAIL.

 

[plindboe]

how about adding any letter besides a, c, g, or t.

But all current organisms only use those four bases, so demanding to see a mutation that adds a 5th base makes no sense.

Peter

 

[Cabal]

Note: A 5 legged horse will not run faster then a 4 legged horse. An advantage would be for a horse to mutate wings and be able to fly.

You really have no clue what evolution claims, do you?

Why would a creature slowly mutate developing wings? The intermediate process would be of no value to them.

Because the intermediates wouldn't be "half a wing". They would be in use as something else.

The bacterial flagellum, the king of creationist PRATTs, was co-opted from a structure that was able to secrete chemicals. After it evolved further, the structure changed, and so did the function.

A similar case would be the human coccyx - originally our tail bone, but as we developed upright motion it was co-opted to support nearby muscles.

 

[3sigma]

I spent 30 minutes reading that article, and I'm still stumped where the beneficial mutation is.
…
All of these are just using added existing code.
…
how about adding any letter besides a, c, g, or t.
…
I am not an expert in the field of biology, but I am willing to take one on.

The Dunning-Kruger (PDF) effect in action.

 

[contango]

I challenge an evolutionist to give me evidence of a beneficial mutation. This should be relatively easy considering the theory is based off mutations.

Note: In arithmetic, if you cannot come to the right conclusion of an equation, try another method.

I'm not specifically an evolutionist, but if you're willing to consider adaptation (also called micro-evolution) then it's easy enough to demonstrate in a laboratory.

If you take bacteria in a culture that would normally reproduce at their optimum rate at 37 degrees, we might reasonably expect to see some form of bell curve where, put simply, the majority would prefer 37 degrees, some smaller number would prefer 36.5 or 37.5, a smaller number again would prefer 36 or 38, and so on.

If this theory is true then increasing the temperature of the vessel from 37 to 37.5 degrees would selectively favour those that preferred a higher temperature, and work against those that preferred a lower temperature. In time we could expect the population to adapt to their warmer surroundings. Once this adaptation had taken place we would expect to see a bell curve but this time with the centre at 37.5 degrees, at which point we could kick the temperature up again.

Experiments like this were done as far back as 1990 (I personally wrote the software to make it happen) and produced the expected results (from what I recall they got the temperatures somewhere north of 50 degrees before the sample was inadvertently contaminated. So the species changed to prefer the higher temperatures. Further experiments were done to expose bacteria to toxins, which showed again that the species could adapt (mutate, if you will) to create an increased tolerance to the toxins and indeed to feed on the toxins.


To be clear this generational change is clearly something encoded within the species itself and not specifically related to individual bacteria. If I lift weights my muscles grow in size and strength but that increased strength isn't replicated in my offspring - in these experiments the populations were clearly adapting over time.

 

[kharisym]

Lenski results challenge creationism - RationalWiki

Sorry about responding to my own post, but for those on here who aren't creationists, I suggest checking out this link. It's an experiment done by Dr. Lenski involving a sample of bacteria that spontaneously developed the ability to digest citrate.

A group of Creationists got all flustered due to this spontaneous mutation and made fools of themselves. This RationalWiki page and a couple subsequent ones detail the whole exchange.

Our Mighty OPper (heaven-sent), is showing himself to be no better than the pompous idiots who thought that their experience washing dishes (or whatever their professions were) was sufficient that they could request the original lab samples to analyze themselves, supposedly at Lenski's expense.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

In Andy Shlaflay's words:

Skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claims, and the significance of your claims, that E. Coli bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study. Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations.

 

[Split Rock]

how about adding any letter besides a, c, g, or t.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous questions ever posted here (and that is saying something). Why are you asking for something no biologists has ever claimed evolution does?

 

[pgp_protector]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous questions ever posted here (and that is saying something). Why are you asking for something no biologists has ever claimed evolution does?

Because they don't understand what DNA is I'm Guessing.

 

[kharisym]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous questions ever posted here (and that is saying something). Why are you asking for something no biologists has ever claimed evolution does?

Because he wants to reassure his own faith, but can't do so on his own. To find reassurance, he follows these steps to a self-fulfilling prophesy: He first finds a group that 'challenges' his beliefs. He then constructs from the fabric of his own mind what he thinks this group believes. Once the straw-man is established, he then concocts an impossible challenge for his straw-man and demands that the real life group answer his challenge. Once they fail to answer the challenge because his straw-man is not reality, his faith is reassured because the infidels clearly cannot prove the belief he thinks they believe.

If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that most creationists debate evolutionists using this model.

 

[Split Rock]

Because he wants to reassure his own faith, but can't do so on his own. To find reassurance, he follows these steps to a self-fulfilling prophesy: He first finds a group that 'challenges' his beliefs. He then constructs from the fabric of his own mind what he thinks this group believes. Once the straw-man is established, he then concocts an impossible challenge for his straw-man and demands that the real life group answer his challenge. Once they fail to answer the challenge because his straw-man is not reality, his faith is reassured because the infidels clearly cannot prove the belief he thinks they believe.

If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that most creationists debate evolutionists using this model.

Very good, but I think one part is missing:

To find reassurance, he follows these steps to a self-fulfilling prophesy: He first finds a group that 'challenges' his beliefs. He then constructs from the fabric of his own mind what he thinks this group believes. He concocts what he thinks is an impossible challenge for this group and demands that the real life group answer his challenge. When they do so easily, he quickly moves the goalposts or attacks a strawman argument he made up for his opponents. Once they fail to answer the challenge because his straw-man is not reality, his faith is reassured because the infidels clearly cannot prove the belief he thinks they believe.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that most creationists debate evolutionists using this model.

I call it sanctifying the delusion.

 

[Targ]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous questions ever posted here (and that is saying something). Why are you asking for something no biologists has ever claimed evolution does?

Likewise. I've heard some bizarre questions before, but this takes the cake.