Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?

Your 'questioning' is an argument from incredulity.Your counterproposal is aesthetic (elegance), not scientific (research).

I do get that mutations do happen that have a beneficial function

Progress.

---

Archer

mjfloresta has introduced a new hypothesis: the Body Plan hypothesis. This deserves a closer look.According to the hypothesis, species can evolve within a given 'body plan' but will not evolve from one 'body plan' to another. No mutations that science has observed to date validate the theory of evolution because none have changed the 'body plan' of a species.This is close to becoming a real proposal that can be validated or falsified scientifically. All mjfloresta has to do is define body plan in a way that may be objectively measured.Let's put the question into focus with an example.A genetic mutation in our own species occurs when one person grows wisdom teeth and another does not. mjfloresta's argument is that this proves nothing about evolution because, wisdom teeth or no wisdom teeth, the human 'body plan' remains the same.It follows, then, that whatever a 'body plan' is, the genes affecting these four teeth are not part of it.How many teeth would have to change, then, before we can say the homo sapiens body plan has evolved? Six teeth? Eight teeth? All of them? Where's the boundary?

---

Archer

mjfloresta writes:

So yeah, I know something about evolution. What else do I have to say?

The scientific definition of your term 'body plan.'We're waiting.

---

Archer

mjfloresta writes:

I think it's difficult to establish this Metric without going into deeply into the genetics..

Don't be shy. We've got specialists here who can follow you, even if all of us can't.Do what you must to put forward a testable hypothesis.

If I define the increase in information or complexity as being that information which is neccessary to produce a different organ or body plan,

What is a 'body plan'?

then I concede there may be some ambiguity, in the absence of comparing the actual genetic makeup of the organs that some organism is supposed to acquire.

Do your best.

But, any ambiguity aside, is there any evidence of an organism acquiring a new organ derived from genetic information it did not previously posess?

No, let's not leave the ambiguity aside. This is important.You have proposed an alternative hypothesis that would invalidate the theory of evolution. If validated, your findings could make and break careers worldwide.Compared to your confident posts a few steps back, you sound suddenly reticent. Why? All we require is the information to understand your hypthesis properly. Now is your chance. Teach us.You have been talking about body plans. You still haven't defined that term scientifically. What is a 'body plan'?Your hypothesis requires that wisdom teeth not be considered part of the 'body plan' of homo sapiens. If those teeth are not part of the body plan, which teeth are? Any? What about jawbone shape? Is that part of the 'body plan' or not? How do you decide?We're still waiting.

---

Archer

mjfloresta writes:

I said it was ambiguous not because there's no defintion, but rather because what comprises one body plan versus another is individualized to each body plan as detailed by tremendously complex genetic codes...

You use the word 'body plan' twice here. You still have not defined the term. Surely you know that this statement cannot be understood until you do.Please give us the information. What is a 'body plan'?After you supply that definition, please explain what you mean by a body plan being 'individualized.' What would be an example of an individualized body plan? How does it differ from an unindividualized body plan?

---

Archer

This post contained material that was ruled off-topic as I was writing it. I saw the notice after posting and modified the message accordingly.Please excuse.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Off topic.

---

Archer

Jazzns writes:

My reasoning is simply that it seems that good examples of beneficial mutations are being overlooked for this pie-in-the-sky expectation of lizard evolving before our eyes. All that is needed to refute the original claim that there is no novel beneficial mutations is to simply show an example of a novel beneficial mutation. There is no requirment that this mutation cause an eye to grow in order for it to be considered beneficial. This false requirement is a distraction technique used by creationists to ignore the very good examples of beneficial mutations that have been presented.

I agree. Personally, I think the evolution of nylonase in bacteria is example enough. Fascinating story.What creationists really owe everyone is a testable explanation of why incremental genetic mutations would not accumulate over time. As things stand there is every reason to think they will, and do.

---

Archer

Faith writes:

I hope we can drop this particular line of thought for now

I can see why you'd want to.

and just focus down on the particulars of the claims about what a beneficial mutation is}

But you don't care, Faith. When you say you 'question' something you mean only that you reject it. The word 'question' is a euphemism you've picked up. It's a cosmetic touch that helps you sound, at first glance, more open to new ideas than you are.Your purpose in this thread is to demand that people cite examples so you can reject them. You're not really curious. Your latest post states as much. You couldn't care less what science has to say about anything.

No, what you mean is not what EVOLUTION says is possible but what SCIENCE says is possible. And I for one am responding to that when I question that what science says is possible [....]

Yeah, well, whatever.Boring.

---

Archer

schrafinator asked Faith: I missed Faith's comment about this. I'm still reading, though.

---

Archer

Faith writes: No one called you that.Interesting that you would take this attitude just as Aegist supplied a succinct list of beneficial mutations to discuss, with links: Instead of throwing around a lot of self-pity, tell us what you make of these examples. You did request them.

---

Archer

ramoss writes: I'm glad you mentioned this. That's a fascinating line of evolution! More transitional creatures than you can shake a stick at. And every stage of the way shows full anatomical function.These weren't dinosaurs, strictly speaking. You're talking about the ancestors of mammals, which would be pelycosaurs, therapsids, and the like.What's interesting is that jawbones were always a means of sensing vibrations. But as evolving leg shapes lifted the animals bodies higher off the ground, the bones shifted to make them more efficient at the task of sensing vibrations while maintaining their function for eating. Hence--the inner ear!Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

---

Archer

Faith,You've been given specific examples of beneficial mutations as you requested. Please address them.

---

Archer

Here's that short list of beneficial mutations again: Plus the mutation of Gene CCR5 linked to HIV resistance, which you promised to consider.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.

---

Archer

Faith writes: You declare yourself the loser of the very game you wanted play.Very well. I can see how you'd feel demoralized, with everyone running up the score on you and all. Enjoy your sulk.Looks like it's Miller Time.

---

Archer