Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?

beneficial mutation number 1: in this thread, I and others have discussed the mutation which confers partial (with one copy) and total (with two copies) immunity to aids (and the black death, and several other diseases, it seems)beneficial mutation number 2: in this thread, others have discussed the bacteria which mutated into a strain which could survive on a new substrate, an entirely new development, in the lab under strict conditionsbeneficial mutation number 3: as has been mentioned many times, the peppered moth. There is a mutation which turns the normally light moths dark. Normally this is bad, but with darker surroundings due to pollution, suddenly this mutation is useful.beneficial mutation number 4: I don't know if you've heard about it, but there is a mutation similar to another blood disease (it looks a little bit like sickle-cell) but in actual fact with those people who have it, their blood cells are smaller than usual - with the result that they can hold more blood cells in their blood stream and hold more oxygen in their body. I forget the name of the skier who has it, but, iirc, they checked him for doping and found this weird blood situation.true story, bro.there are, of course, many others and I could spend hours and hours researching them, but I'm not convinced it would be worthwhile.In each and every case, the mutations were naturally occuring and beneficial in some form.

That's all well and good greyseal. We don't dispute mico-evolution does take place in rare instances.
My problem is with gross exaggerations such that Crashfrog made.Respectfully,
IC

I believe you are talking about Eero Mntyranta from the '64 Olympics.

Every single living organism is evidence for evolution by natural selection and random mutation.Every single one. That's why the things I said about evolution are true: any medical diagnosis is supported by evidence from only one organism. Any court decision is supported by a handful of evidence from a handful of investigators. Any other theory in science is supported by a handful of scientific experiments.But the evidence for evolution is every single organism that has ever lived. It's no exaggeration. I don't even think you can imagine how many organisms have ever lived, IC, regardless of how smart you seem to think you are.You want to see the mountain? Get off your kiester and head down to the zoo. Head into a library and read some of the piles of papers we've tried to show you, which you ignorantly dismissed. Head into a classroom and try to learn some biology. We can't deliver the mountain to your doorstep because the mountain of evidence is an entire planet populated by living things that you insist on learning absolutely nothing about.Yes there is proof of beneficial mutations. You've been shown it over and over again.

I think you'll find that many of your ilk do. They come up with baloney like "the information was already in the genome" in some sort of attempt to say that god gave the creatures these abilities at the beginning, somehow hidden into their genetic code. What gross exaggeration? every single organism that has ever lived is the proof of evolution by natural selection, by beneficial mutations.If you accept that "microevolution" occurs (a neat word made up by those intending to discredit evolution by obfuscation) then you accept "macroevolution" because the latter is just many occurences of the former. As has been put so many times before - the difference is like saying because you can't walk across the USA in one night on foot it can't be done, yet given enough steps it can and has.And to put this all back on topic, I don't believe that moving the goalposts to demanding a "beneficial macroevolutionary occurence" (which will generally not happen, I don't think one ever has) is fair.You asked for examples of beneficial mutations. I gave you four. Sorry, that's game over for you.

I'm not sure - but yes, the mutation he has is the one I was talking about. From the wikipedia page, it says he tested positive for amphetamines, but it was "hushed up" - I think the wiki page is wrong (as usual). He apparently tested positive, but he denied it and (at the time at least) couldn't prove it, and he was given a warning. It doesn't sound like a hush-up.That aside, he has/had polycythemia vera.

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.

Hi Bluejay, I didn't go exhaustively and fetch reams of information about the mutations, but I'm quite sure I can back them up as being (relatively recent) mutations which are also beneficial (at least some of the time!), but you're probably right. They didn't happen in the lab - most mutations don't. It won't stop the IDiots from claiming something like "it's microevolution" or "the capability was there already" in either case though... It'll be tough whether it happens in the lab or not. Two clear occurences in the lab are a real big plus though. well yes - the first two happened in the lab, the second two aren't present in the entirety of the population and are a minority, ergo unless godidit they are relatively recent mutations which can be backtracked by some sleuthing to find out when and where they came from... well, unless you have a better way for it to have arisen, it must be because of mutation, no? On the other hand, I just know that there are those who will take one look at the mutations that arose in the lab and say those don't count either because godidit *shrug*. I only mentioned them because IC wanted examples of mutations, these fit the bill.

NO it isn't. Every single living organism is evidence of an intelligent Designer. Every organism has clear design with intelligence. Your saying it isn't true doesn't change the clear facts. I don't disagree with that. They are called variations of existing information!

There is evidence that mutations happen.There is evidence that there is Natural Selection.Now, where is the evidence that there is a Designer?

---

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

Except that neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to substantiate that, or explain why, if organisms are supposedly designed by the ultimate intelligence, they seem so unintelligent in their design.There's no evidence for "intelligent design" to be demonstrated in the natural world. That's why every thread or conversation you've ever started on the subject has ended with your retreat. Evolution occurs by varying the existing information in the DNA in organisms by mutation. These variations increase or decrease the information content of an organism's genome and produce new function.

Its funny how evolutionists can go on and on off topic as well as insult me and yet the moderators never say a word. I mentioned new function earlier and was immediately red tagged on this thread.And I never retreat in defeat but retire in victory. I make my point and go. Just like my last thread. You failed to make your case as far as I was concerned. You guys will have the last word if you have to keep at it for a 1000 posts. I am secure enough in my position to make my point and retire.As always Crashfrog, I disagree with 98% of everything you say because you are wrong that often, including this post I am responding to. All you can produce for evidence is minor variations. A bacteria with a different diet and insignificant minor variations such as that. OOhh what a grand new function.
Show me an animal that has a new and better function over its relatives that is a result of the evolution of the past several thousand years. Lets see some evidence like that.

Click to enlarge.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It's hardly an insult, it's simply a description of fact.Am I wrong? Is there a thread you've started on this subject that you've not abandoned? And that's fine! I don't expect you to immediately defer to my expertise about anything.But if you're so sure I'm wrong why don't you make an effort to prove it? Why do you spend so much time telling me how stupid I am and so little time defending your arguments with evidence? Evolution is a series of minor variations. Haven't you heard someone say "the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step"? Isn't a "new function" exactly what you claimed evolution could not, under any circumstances, produce? How would we show you that, since several thousand years would exceed the length of human civilization? We could show you any number of organisms with improved functions over their ancestors, and you'll just dispute that they are the ancestors. Won't you?How about instead of sweeping demands for new evidence to ignore, you stop ignoring all the evidence we've shown you already?

Yes, as usual you are wrong. I haven't "abandoned" anything. I explained to you once already.
I made my point and now retire the subject. You are welcome to get your childish last word in.
Be my guest.I am ready to retire from this thread as well because as always you have nothing to offer as evidence.
Here is a case in point: I said an animal, you came back with... .....So are you telling me you think the human race evolved in a few thousand years? I'll probably have to if I want to keep speaking the truth. I have shown you the evidence time and time again how the design of it all couldn't possibly
be done without the aid of intelligence. You always fail to prove otherwise. Its that simple. A NEW function and a MODIFIED function are two entirely different classifications so let me clarify.
I believe a mutation can modify a function but not create an entirely new function.
Show me an entirely new function caused by mutations.Will respond tomorrow if its worth my breath,
IC