Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?

Another thing is that you are apparently assuming, as per the ToE, that all "traits" are the result of mutation. This is understandable, it is what the ToE dictates. But creationists question this of course. Traits are simply the selected product of the variety of alleles already present in a population, which were designed into the creature, not created by mutation.So I was not talking about traits, but only about the supposedly beneficial mutations that are currently claimed to have been observed, more than one of which is like the Sickle Cell genetic disease which is strongly selected because of its protection against malaria.

quote:

---

You are all repeating yourselves, saying nothing I don't already know.

---

If you already know what we've said, why won't you explain why you don't accept what we've said?Gene CCR5, Faith. You've simply pretended, over 400 posts now, that nobody has mentioned it.Also, which is more "viable" as a population;One that all of the individuals have been killed by malaria, or one in which a percentage of the population, which nubers in the millions and spreads across several continents, has SCD?

quote:

---

The "overwhelming evidence" is an illusion. But there is no point in arguing this with a dozen people who are only going to use their numbers and their being on the side of the "right" opinion, plus ridicule, to win their point, instead of arguments, and who just can't bear it when we aren't persuaded.

---

Welcome to the rigors of scientific inquiry.And nobody has used ridicule to win their point.You handed all of us our points on a silver platter because you haven't addressed most of them with anything other than personal incredulity, and the rest you haven't addressed at all.Gene CCR5, for example.

Designed into the creaures when? How many creatures? What was the initial population size and how long ago was this?What possible criteria distinguish the character of the genetic differences seen in beneicial alleles from the many experimentaly observed or genetically documented forms of genetic mutation? What barrier prevents the same mutations happening to produce exactly the beneficial alleles you are ascribing to prior design?It isn't just an understandable assumption because it is what the ToE dictates but because it is consistent with all the known mechanisms of genetics and with the many observed forms of genetic mutation. All the novel traits we have seen develop de novo are the products of mutation so what reason, other than a prior bias, would there be for assuming that other traits are not?TTFN,WK

quote:

---

but the trade-offs I had in mind weren't adaptations, they were active diseases vs. active diseases.

---

Why are you so focused on those? What is the difference, anyway, WRT survivability in a species?Remember, evolution doesn't care that individuals live long, healthy lives. That's you anthropomorphizing evolution.I addressed this already in the last thread, and in this one
here

I understand that, and in message 14 you implied that these mutations were distinct from previously existing traits because they involve compromises and trade-offs, whereas you said existing traits do not. The point is, compromise is the rule rather than the exception in existing traits as well.Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.

You have the usual fanciful and totally hypothetical scenario about how everything came about according to the ToE. I'm trying to talk about actual evidence, not the standard evo fantasies. I address the specific examples given, such as the sickle cell mutation and people answer with standard ToE hypotheses. Not kosher.Again, I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW already that evolution doesn't give a fig about long healthy lives or anything else except survival and propagation. Good grief, this is tiresome. But it is not anthropomorphizing anything to suspect that what is observed of what IS healthy could not possibly have come about by a system that pits disease against disease, and that calling that "beneficial" flies in the face of reason. Such a system is not a viable system even for survival let alone evolution.But since this logic is not convincing to anyone who is stuck on the ToE, that's fine, I'm ready to stop discussing this since it is going nowhere.

Adaptations of the sort described ARE elegant and precise by the terms I was using, they are NOT "compromises" of the sort of disease vs. disease. I'm questioning the very idea that such adaptations could ever have come about by such a process as mutation as described in the few examples so far given.

If scientists weren't so besotted with the ToE we might be able to come up with some answers to such questions. They'll never stand a chance when people's minds are turned in the opposite direction. I have no idea. The fact appears to be that they don't, that's all, but instead produce all kinds of useless or deleterious alleles in some amazing proportion, and besides that, I know you think the short list of beneficial mutations so far discussed on the other thread is sufficient evidence that this could be the cause of all traits, but I simply despair of anyone's seeing how obviously it can't possibly be so. And I know you despair of my seeing how it is. You have to be somehow dismissing the implications of the enormous preponderance of deleterious mutations and supposedly functionless mutations that simply snuff out alleles right and left to who-knows-what ultimate end. Yes, I know selection supposedly weeds all this out, but but that's just theory, not actual fact. There's a lot of useless junk and various less-than-desirable mutations in all our genomes so obviously a lot didn't get weeded out. Well, this is where I'd like to see a really comprehensive list of these so-called novel traits you have actually seen develop de novo that are viable or beneficial. I'm not impressed with the short list so far. This isn't about my assumptions, it's just about the claims for this list against what actually exists. I suppose my assumptions make it possible for me to think against the ToE of course.

That is easy enough. Look at the development of the ear. We have fossil evidence on how that developed. it can be shown, via fossil evidence, how selection caused the ear to form.

All fossil evidence can show is a variety of designs of the ear. The idea that one is related to another genetically is a purely hypothetical assumption imposed on the data.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,You started out trying to learn enough about mutations to understand how they could be beneficial, but you were gone for a short while during which time mjfloresta drew the thread off-topic. AdminNWR issued a topic drift alert, and when you returned you went into denial mode, triggered perhaps by Jazzns's Message 73. Could we return to discussion?Perhaps the confusion is related to the definition of beneficial. There's definitely a component of your approach to to thinking this that seems to be saying, "How could a mistake ever be beneficial? This is obviously impossible!"A beneficial mutation is one that confers differential reproductive success upon the organism. Differential reproductive success means that the organism with the mutation is differently successful than other organisms without the mutation at producing offspring. If the mutation causes the organism to become better at producing offspring, then to a degree governed by the laws of genetics and the details of the organism's reproductive process its offspring inherit the mutation, and it spreads throughout the population because of the greater ability to produce offspring.But if the mutation causes the organism to become less successful at producing offspring, then the mutation tends not to spread through the population because the organism produces less offspring than other individuals. In the worst case the mutation causes death before the organism reaches sexual maturity, the organism produces no offspring at all, and the mutation dies out in a single generation.What's most important about a mutation is its effect on an organism's ability to produce offspring. If the mutation enables it to produce more offspring, then it is beneficial. If the mutation makes the organism less able to produce offspring, then it is harmful.Another component to your approach to thinking about beneficial mutations seems related not to single mutations during single reproductive events, but multiple beneficial mutations over long periods of time and many reproductive events. But once you've accepted the possibility of a beneficial mutation in a single reproductive event, since the probability of a beneficial mutation is largely independent of past reproductive events, future reproductive events are about as likely to produce beneficial mutations as ones in the past. Just like a throw in dice of boxcars (6 on each of two die) does not affect the likelihood of the next throw being boxcars, a reproductive event resulting in a beneficial mutation does not affect the likelihood of another beneficial mutation in the next reproductive event. I thought you said you were going to try and understand things this time. Where did you get the idea that functionless mutations snuff out alleles? It's not fact, but it *is* theory supported by massive piles of evidence. You're now denying a process that is so well established that students in biology programs observe this very process experimentally when they do their genetics labs. This is why people keep mentioning bacterial experiments to you. The bacterial experiments aren't popular because the process only happens in bacteria. They're popular because they can be done in less than a week. The same kind of reproductive errors and selection observed with bacteria are observed with other organisms, both in the lab and in the wild, but over much longer time periods. I guarantee you that no one living in the world today possesses a fatal mutation that is dominant expressive. That's because they're filtered (selected against) very well. In other words, 100% of fatal mutations are filtered. Mutations that are less than 100% fatal or that have recessive qualities so they can easily hide in the genome are of course filtered to a lesser degree. But since they do not contribute positively to people's differential reproductive success and because they can, under conditions that cause them to be expressed, contribute negatively to differential reproductive success, they cannot help but be filtered to some degree from the population because the affected individuals produce fewer offspring. I've seen no indication that you've understood anything on the short list so far, though that hasn't stopped you from saying you're unimpressed and rejecting them. You seem to believe it's valid to conclude that that which you don't yet understand is false. Nobody minds this. The problem is rejecting arguments and evidence before you understand them. Could we once more leave denial aside and go back to discussion?--Percy

no I don't, there is no reason why mutation can't give rise to both deleterious and beneficial mutations. I'm not sure what you mean by 'funtionless' mutations, do you mean silent mutations, neutral mutations or mutations which render a gene non-functional? No it isn't just a theory and there is no call for selection to weed out all of what you consider deleterious mutations, or even all deleterious mutations. It is not mere theory that embryonic lethal mutations or mutations which cause sterility will not be passed on. Less significantly deleterious mutations need not be selected out of the population, although they may tend to be.TTFN,WK

What is "denial mode?" What am I denying? Your personal characterization of my motives is unwelcome. Please take it back.

You supposedly joined this thread to understand what evolution says about beneficial mutations. It was pointed out in other threads that you were making many inaccurate statements and needed to understand evolution better before you could criticize it. It was also pointed out that understanding it isn't the same thing as accepting it, but that such an understanding was necessary in order to criticize it for things it actually says, rather than things you think it says.But after Jazzns's Message 77 you changed tack and decided that the ToE perspective is off-limits, saying things like this: You began participation in this thread with the apparent intention of understanding how ToE views beneficial mutations, but now you seem to believe that understanding anything from a ToE perspective is something you're going to actively avoid. I'd like to see you return to your original mode of participation by addressing the substance of my Message 117.--Percy