Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?

What we observe is that alterations of the genetic information is random with respect to fitness. These mutations then pass through natural selection, either becoming more common in the population or less common depending on the environment. A perfect experiment to illustrate how this occurs is the Lederbergs' plate replica experiment: .pdf formatIn this experiment the Lederbergs demonstrated that mutations were responsible for spectinomycin resistance in the E. coli they used in the experiment. Even more importantly, they demonstrated that these mutations occurred in the absence of antibiotics. That is, mutations conferring antibiotic resistance occurred before the bacteria were exposed to antibiotics. These mutations were not a response to the presence of antibiotics. Rather, these mutations were random with respect to the presence of antibiotics. These mutations occurred at the same rate in both the absence and presence of antibiotics. I would describe it more as bacteria acting like automatons . . . like robots. They do not display an intelligence on par with humans, that is for sure. If you disagree, then please cite an example and demonstrate that a deity is making those decisions. I note that you cite no evidence to back up this claim, but with that being said . . .This creates an ethical problem. It is a known fact that children are born with genetic diseases. We know that these are due to mutations because the parents are asymptomatic and lack the mutation seen in these children. Your claim can only leave us with one conclusion, God is purposefully making these children suffer some very painful and awful diseases. Some of these diseases are quite lethal, and others (e.g. hemophilia) create serious health problems throughout life. Would you consider giving children deadly and painful diseases an "intelligent" decision?

The technique is explained here: Plate replica techniqueYou start this experiment with a single bacterium that forms a single colony on an agar plate. You then transfer that single colony to some liquid media to make more bacteria. At a certain point you spread this liquid media over an agar plate and let it grow overnight producing a lawn of bacteria. All of this is done on plates that do not contain antibiotic.Using a stamp-like apparatus you then transfer bacteria from the master plate (the plate with the lawn of bacteria) to several plates containing bacteria. What you find is that resistant colonies grow on the plate, and they occur at the same spot on each plate. This is because they originate from bacteria on the same spot on the master plate. Therefore, there are resistant bacteria on the master plate that have never been exposed to antibiotic, and those resistant clones arose through mutation from the original bacterium since that original bacterium was not resistant (as evidenced by the non-resistant phenotype of the vast majority of bacteria). As the Lederberg's put it, they were pre-adapted and that adaptation occured in the absence of antibiotics. And at the same time, some adapation requires mutations in the DNA. So it may be part of God's plan to give children horrific genetic diseases that kills them before they ever reach adulthood? Yikes. The mechanisms that produce beneficial and detrimental mutations are the same. You can't call it "genetic breakdown" when it does something bad and "intelligent design" when it does something good. It is the same mechanism in both instances. If Santa Claus did not have flying reindeer would he be able to deliver presents to all the children across the world?

Your numbers are way off. The Lederbergs reported that resistant clones occured in one in every 10 billion bacteria, and in in every 10 million for bacteriophage resistance.Source: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/BB/A/B/F/J/_/bbabfj.pdf If it was present in the single bacterium that was the founder of the entire population then nearly the entire population (more than 99.999%) would be resistant. They weren't. Only one in 10 billion were antibiotic resistant after the culture had increased in number over time.

I am assuming that by ABR you are referring to anbiotic bacterial resistance. I apologize if you defined it elsewhere. With that said . . .What I am saying is that mutations which confer antibiotic resistance are not triggered by the presence of antibiotics. This means that these mutations are random with respect to fitness. That last italicized part is important. Mutations are not random with respect to time because mutations rates can change. Mutations rates are not random with respect to each nucleotide in the genome because some areas of DNA are more prone to mutation than others. The randomness of mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism, that is the important bit.The game of craps is a great analogy for this. There are 11 possible outcomes for each roll of the dice which are 2 through 12 (we will ignore the specific dice combinations for now). However, in 100 rolls you will notice that there is not an even distribution between the numbers. There are very few 12's compared to 7's. So there is a much higher chance of rolling a 7 than there is a 12. This is the case with DNA. Certain DNA sequences have a higher chance of mutating due to their arrangement. So how is craps random? Well, it is random with respect to the bet. If I place my bet on the Pass Line (where a 7 or 11 is an automatic winner) the chances of rolling a winning combination is not increased. The outcome of the roll is random with respect to the bet in the same way that mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism. I am not talking about an infection. I am talking about a genetic disease, a disease caused by a mutation. If you want to argue that mutations are designed into organisms then you have to also admit that this supposed designer designed this system to produce mutations that give children horrific genetic diseases. These genetic diseases are incurable, unless, of course, you are an omnipotent deity. You are asking me for the scientific outcome of a mythological story if the conditions were different. You are getting your wires crossed. All of this is off topic and covered in other threads. If you want, you can start a new thread on each of these topics. I would be most interested in your definition of transitional fossil, along with the criteria you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Bolder-dash,Are you trying to say that HIV does not cause AIDS?

Uncertainty as to what? That HIV can and does cause AIDS if left untreated in the vast majority of cases?