Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?

That aren't new and they aren't really even new bacteria. They generally tend to revert back to their same old ways of doing things as soon as the diet changes again. And so what is this telling us?In a zillion billion generations we know we can go from bacteria not eating nylon, to bacteria eating nylon, to bacteria going back to not eating nylon.So what inferences can we make about future evolutionary changes based on this model? The answer is that in another zillion billion generations they might still be eating nylon or not eating nylon. We are not getting very far for a zillion zillion, billion billion generations.

Huh?When they evolve some new trait they are not new?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Some people can drink milk and some can't, I think its stretching it to say they are new people.Besides, where doe the inference lead us? It leads us away from the likelihood of new structures arising in a given period of time, not towards it. If we study a gazillion billion trillion million generations and the most novel thing is they eat different food, what can we extrapolate with time? That there is not enough time or generations during the entire existence of the planet to do what you are claiming, that's what.

Good thing I haven't said that yet.BUT... from the studies of bacteria and other simple studies we do learn the methods, the processes, what happens.The processes are the same for bacteria or primate, it is all simply change over time. So far though, the ONLY theory that explains how those changes happen is the Theory of Evolution.It's the only model out there.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Time? A zillion billion generations to maintain the exact form, the exact same structure? How much time do you want?If you use bacteria to prove your theory works, you fail. Bacteria proves that all the mutations in the history of time are not enough to do anything more than keep a bacteria a bacteria. Now matter how many generations we study they never do anything more than change their diets. People who don't drink milk are still people, and bacteria that eat nylon are still bacteria.The laws of probability say that every mutation that ever could happen to bacteria has already happened many times. Bacteria proves the theory must be wrong.

Well, that's not true. Frequently they gain resistance to antibiotics. Once a microbe species was observed to evolve true multicellularity.But, you know, we've only been looking at bacteria for about a hundred years. We've been able to study their genetics for only about 50. It took three billion years for bacteria to evolve into complex multicellular life; the notion that we could possibly see it happen again in only 100 years is an absurdity. How about three billion years, like last time? Um, maybe you could show your work on that? Be specific. Probability is mathematics, you realize that, right? You just can't handwave the math if you want to make an argument from mathematics.

Lol. Too bad for you that your misconception is not the theory then. But it's not the exact same structure. There are clear differences in several proteins that make the evolved bacteria much more likely to survive than their ancestors. How do we fail to validate a theory by validating it? Pay attention to what people on these fora have told you and you might actually know that's not the case.
And they do far more than change diets. They develop immunities; they develop methods of evolving faster; they develop(ed) methods of movement; they did a huge array of things that you refuse to acknowledge, because you know that it shows you to be wrong. No, they don't: they say the probability approaches one, not that it is one. But yes, they probably have undergone every possible mutation at some point.Guess what? Having a mutation isn't automatically going to result in a new kind or species. You've got around a hundred mutations yourself, just like every other human alive, and we obviously don't consider different humans to be different species.Finally, your conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the existence of mutations and the continued existence of bacteria that evolution doesn't exist.Is it too much to ask for you to actually try understanding the theory? Other creationists seem able to do it; why does your type of creo insist on beating strawmen?

Full disclosure, please show your evidence.

quote:

---

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

​

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

---

That's ignorance. 50,000 generations in the longest experiment so far. That's just a lie. And having shown your ignorance, then supported it with a lie, you've come to the conclusion you desire.Well done!

I think you would have to define 'true multicellularity' more clearly for this to be sufficient. One of the distinctions commonly made between multicellular organisms and simpler colonial organisms is a distinct division of cells between reproducing and non-reproducing types. i.e. the establishment of specialised germ line cells. In Volvox carteri for instances there are a few (~16) germ line cells supported by ~2000 somatic cells.TTFN,WK

I'm with Wounded King, this is an example of colonial behaviour emerging in a unicellular organism not the emergence of a multicellular organism. Boraas et al do suggest that it's a possible starting point for multicellularity in a later paper* but there's no cellular differentiation, and the colony reproduces as individuals, not as a collective. In fact pretty much the only difference is in cell adhesion.* - Boraas M.E., Seale, D.B.,Boxhorn, J.E. (1998) Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity Evolution Ecology 12(2), pp.153-164Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

first of all only 50 000 generations where ever tested. but lets skip bacteria lets go to dogsthese are new dog subspecies, bred by selective breeeding witch is evolution on a fasttrack the only diference is that their new traits do not help them in the wild but they help them to get baught or to help their owners.American Hairless Terrier (1972)
Australian bulldog (1990s)
Black Russian Terrier (Russia, 1940s)
Czechoslovakian Wolf-dog (1950s)
Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge (1980s)
Olde English Bulldogge (1971)
Kunming dog (US, 1950s)
Kyi Leo (1940)
Lupo italiano (Italy, 1966)
Mi-ki
Moscow Toy Terrier (Russia, 1960s)
Shiloh Shepherd (US, 1960)
Silken Windhound (US, 1990s)
Silken Windsprite (US, 1980s)
Tamaskan dog (1990s)and some mice on thieir ownA small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate speciesA remarkable example is the London Underground mosquito. It is believed to have evolved from an above-ground species which moved into tunnels being excavated to construct the London underground rail system in the 1850s. Today the underground mosquito's aggressive bite gives commuters hell, while the above-ground species only feeds off birds. The two species can no longer interbreed and have become separate in just 150 years.Edited by frako, : forgot somthing

More word salad, misrepresentation and yet another attempted misdirection.The bacteria did change form. The genes of the bacteria changed over time. That is what the experiments were testing. They were tests to show that mutation can be the cause of genetic change. The experiments supported the hypothesis. I ask that you provide the calculations that support that assertion.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Looks like you have no intention of discussing your OP.When you want to respond to the answers you have been given maybe I might respond more.I think new threads in which the the poster does not post anything other than the OP should be shut down. But that is my own opinion. This just gives BD another thread to sidetrack