Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?

Hi, Xstar.Welcome to EvC!I think you're asking a fair and reasonable question. Everybody is in a bad mood about it because it's been the focus of several recent, very irritating threads, so don't let the strong negative feedback turn you off to this site.There is a large amount of evidence for beneficial mutations. The best examples come from bacteria, because they can be easily manipulated, and can reproduce extremely rapidly, making it easy to watch mutations and evolution happening on short time scales.This is my favorite example of mutations, which I've been tossing around a lot recently: Hallett and Maxwell 1991To summarize, here is what Hallet and Maxwell did:

1. Acquired a colony of bacteria with known genotype for a gene called gyrA. This bacterium is known to be susceptible to a type of antibacterial called quinolone
2. Induced random misrepair mutations in the gyrA gene using a substance that is known to create random mutations
3. Applied quinolone to the colony
4. Discovered that some of the bacteria were not killed by the quinolone, even though the colony was susceptible to quinolone. This showed that something had changed
5. Sequenced the gyrA gene of some of the bacteria that survived the quinolone
6. Discovered that one resistant bacterium had a gyrA genotype that was different from the original colony’s genotype (where the original genotype’s 317th nucleotide was an A, the resistant genotype’s 317th nucleotide was a G); i.e., it's gyrA gene had mutated.
7. Discovered that the gyrase protein produced by the mutant gyrA allele was also different from the original protein of the colony
8. Isolated the gyrase protein that was produced by the mutant gyrA allele
9. Tested the function of this mutant protein under varying levels of quinolone
10. Discovered that the mutant protein could tolerate 10 times more quinolone than the original protein, and still function properly

I like this study because it is very complete: it tested every possible step in the process of mutation, so there is no room to argue that something other than the processes proposed by the Theory of Evolution happened.They showed that random mutation created a new allele (i.e., added information that did not previously exist), that the new allele produced a novel protein, and that the novel protein outperformed the original protein. Thus, the mutant bacteria were selected for by the quinolone regime.There is no way to credibly explain this data other than with a beneficial, information-adding, random mutation.Anyway, I hope this helps.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Frako.Welcome to EvC!All it takes for you to think someone is a Bible-thumping creationist is for them to ask whether or not a particular trait is due to mutation?Not everybody who challenges an evolutionist's claim is a Bible-thumper, or even a creationist, for that matter.Many evolutionists are in the habit of correcting other evolutionists when they think correction is required. You should really develop a habit of gathering more data before jumping to conclusions.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Greyseal.I don't think your third and fourth examples are good examples, because the actual occurence of the mutation wasn't shown in either example (at least as far as I can see).In order to really demonstrate that beneficial mutations do happen, the evidence we have to gather is evidence of beneficial genotypes happening, not just of beneficial genotypes existing.After we can establish a pattern of evidence demonstrating beneficial mutations happening, then we can get into inferring that other beneficial genotypes arose via mutation.Presenting a rare genotype and saying it arose via mutation is frankly skipping a step. I think itt would be best to stick to evidence about mutations happening for this discussion.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.