Beneficial Mutations Made Simple

Mathematics is the core language of science, not simply evolution.
Try engineering anything without it. You mean why you think you have enough education to come and post in a science forum?Are you here to learn something, or simply to be outspoken in your lack of knowledge?

How is the mutation leading to hemoglobin C not beneficial in the malaria-ridden environment where it arose? Is 93% lower chance of getting malaria of no consequence in a part of the world where a million kids a year die from malaria?

You said beneficial mutations were rare. We agree "rare" is 1 in a billion.Now we calculate how many of them occur. However, you can see where that leads and rather than be honest enough to admit that you are wrong you want to avoid going further. This is very typical of creationists.You now need to explain why calculating the number of mutations isn't related to evolution. I'd be very interested in what you come up with. This is of course wrong. Since they have been observed in other animals and humans. You need to know what you are talking about before you say such things. It doesn't reflect well on your camp.

Ok then! go ahead show me what results you get to support evolution.By the way, in the end of the post are you suggesting that speciation has been observed?

Why yes, speciation has been observed, many times as a matter of fact.One example is the Faeroe Island Mouse.

In addition! I need to hear from you or anybody about how a fish can evolve into a reptile as suggested in the "transition from water to land" scenario.

You know that specaition is not just a change in color or in other observable trait. I mean as a species like a fish turning into a reptile.

There is probably a building in your town called a library. It would be the one that has books to loan out, typically for free.If you have one, see if they have Gaining Ground by Jennifer Clack or At the Water's Edge by Carl Zimmer. Reading either of those will give you a good start on how that happened. Heck, this thread right here at EvC is a start. Or over here.

No, that's X-Men, not biology. Speciation doesn't happen all in one flash. A mama fish lays a clutch of eggs, and there are some slight variations among the fish that result - like there are variations among any sisters and brothers you have. Some of these variants have a little bit of an edge in growing up and laying their own eggs, in the context of the environment they inhabit. The process repeats, maybe a couple of thousand generations' worth. The fish at this 2000th generation look slightly but noticeably different from the original mama fish - perhaps because the lake they've all lived in is slowly getting saltier. The process goes on....this line of fish eventually either dies out, or some of its members show up with new traits that help them survive in a saltier world. A new species, in other words.

Here is a perfect example of how evolutionists use only their imagination to explain evolutionary scenarios. Maybe you should puplish it and call it "scientific". Or it would be better if you turn it into one of those unrealistic Japanese animes. True but if you'r evolutionist you should beleive that it does. I'll show you why. Yes, but we're still humans and not new species. We all have similar human anatomies and overall chemical makeup. Even worst! evolutionists make up any number they see fit. It is still a fish that uses gills to breathe underwater and if it goes out on land it will die. They are still fish! And they still live underwater.You need to know this: In order for a fish to be able to live on land it will not be enough to adapt to saltier environment. The fish will need the following:1)A fully developed lung-based respirotary system just like any land animal.
2)Fish bodies are desinged to swim underwater. They would have to acquire new muscular and skeletal systems and new body anatomy to be able to move and live on land.
3)Fish would need to have a different type of skin and a heat resistant system to meet the wide change in temperature on land and to limit water loss from the body. A new body system in other words.
4)fish would need a new waste system based on kidneys just as any land organism. Because aquatic organisms deposit wastes by use of their aquatic environment. But on land its a different environment.As you can see, a fish will need to have all these systems and in a "fully developed state" to be able to live on land. A step by step evolution is not possible, because if one of these systems is absent or partailly developed (i.e. half a lung, or one leg) It will not be enough for the fish to live on land.If you believe in this scenario, you'll have to believe that all these systems emerged suddenly and in one fish as a result of chance mutation! Now Where is the logic in evolution. Mutations are not concious mechanisms that can create new perfectly functioning organs or body systems.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Exactly correct. That's one reason that so many fish lay, say, 100,000 eggs at a pop. Most get eaten. Most, if they have any mutations, have minor ones that don't effect their chances for survival. Some have lethal mutations, or ones that handicap their ability to grow and reproduce. Occasionally, one might have a mutation that leads to its swim bladder being better than average at extracting oxygen from air. That last one is better equipped to survive a long dry spell at the pond. ...it might just need to have some minor adaptations, like a walking catfish, a mudskipper, or a northern snakehead. No, none of those live on land full time - but then neither do frogs or salamanders.http://www.newyorktails.com/mudskippers.htm
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/snakeheadinfosheet.html
ScotCat Factsheets: May 2000: Clarias batrachus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Mr M - {qs}what you want to quote{/qs}, but with square brackets, will give you quote boxes and make your posts easier to read. Or use the "peek" button to see how other posts were formatted. Like this:

OK Thanks!

The current trend of this thread seems to be away from the topic outlined in the OP. Can we focus on specific well supported instances of beneficial mutations rather than generalisations and speculation.Similarly it would help if mr matrix could address specific problems with the given examples rather than with benefical mutations as an entire class.Speciation is also not the topic of this threadTTFN,AW

Heh. I forgot that I had posted in here. I agree with that statement. You sure about that? Don't take my word for it, as you've assumed that I'm "parroting bullshit."Welcome | Department of Ecology & Evolutionary BiologyJust a moment...Functional evolution of Hox proteins in arthropods - PubMedMutations in homothorax (also known as dorsotonals), which codes for a protein that interacts with Extradenticle, seem to alter the identity of the abdominal chordotonal neurons...The Hox family transcription factors control diversified morphogenesis during development and evolution."http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/...ve-fly/segment/abdmla4.htm"Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses."This quip was taken from the PBS 2 special "Evolution," which was a 7 serie special. The tacit implication is that this is how new body segments can arise due to mutations. If Homeobox genes act as the architect in where what body part goes, then the implication that a chance mutation can cause an evolvement never before seen, and that it can be successful until reproduction.