Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?

Don't we already have two threads currently in progress talking about this, let alone all the old ones?There's whatsisname's ongoing "Bacteria Diet" liefest and then there's the stuff in the "Questions About Evolution" thread, both of which threads are current, and then the EvC forum as a whole has been operative for going on for a decade, and I believe the subject must have been discussed now and then.

If this was true, you would not be implying that you haven't found any. Then it is certain that either you are lying or that you have never looked.A search of these forums using the forums using the search function, let alone a search of the entire internet using google, would have provided you with an abundance of data if you were really looking for it.

Maybe he took my hint and went to find out about this new exciting "Google" thingamajig that everyone's talking about nowadays.

No.While you yourself remain so utterly hopelessly confused about the theory of evolution you should stop trying to teach it to others.

I believe I have read somewhere on these boards that when some metabolic genes in bacteria are made to work overtime as a result of their environment, they become more likely to mutate than is otherwise the case. Hopefully whoever posted the link the first time around will post it again.However, this does not predispose towards a particular mutation, it just increases the likelihood of a mutation in a particular place.And of course any such mutation could happen in an environment which was not particularly stressing the gene.So yes, you're right. Even in this special case, the environment cannot be said to cause a particular mutation, nor will the mutations that arise be impossible in other environments.The reason is that the copying mechanisms in the cell can't think --- they can't say to themselves ... hmm, the environment is like this ... so my offspring would be better off if this protein was like that ... which I could achieve by miscopying a T as an A just here ...(We might imagine a mechanism that toggled between two versions of a gene in response to environmental stimuli, that would be fascinating. But there can be nothing in the cell with the intelligence to perform general tasks of genetic engineering.)

No, no more than the other things bacteria do. Because that trait is itself beneficial and would be selected for. When things aren't going well, it's probably a good idea to change your approach.(And see my previous post --- if something in particular is not going well, it's probably a good idea to change that.)

And there is a total lack of undisputed examples of the evidence required for the Holocaust to be true.This is because it is all disputed. By Holocaust deniers.Anything can be disputed, all it takes is one crank with a soapbox. And there you go again.How many books have been published on Holocaust denial? On "crystal healing"? On homeopathy? On Flat-Earthism? Yes I do. I've even debated with them.If your line of reasoning was correct, then the very fact that they exist would cast doubt on gravity.But it doesn't, does it?---If I do not presently reply to the congealed mess of nonsense in the rest of your post (BTW, do you really not know the difference between viral and genetic diseases?) this does not imply that it isn't all equally stupid, just that right now I have better things to do.

EvC Forum: Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?Now, I believe that there was a topic that you were trying to avoid discussing.