tell me one beneficial mutation example - if there is

[Guest jasonparker]

i always hear the same examples; antibiotics resistance of bacteria, ddt , anemia examples…. These are all invalid. Just please tell me one valid example of beneficial mutation if there is. Also backup your example please. By the way i uggest you to check this before you write " The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions" http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions01.php

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, here goes:

Before you even read the rest of this message, please read the following threads:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2689

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2576

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2577

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2444

i always hear the same examples; antibiotics resistance of bacteria, ddt , anemia examples…. These are all invalid.

What? How so?

Now I shall go into what the site says:

 

It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.

Balderdash. Just because it's very unlikely to happen does not mean that it is impossible. The creation of life took millions of years, and I'm sure that in that time it would have happened sometime or another.

If these intermediate forms had ever really existed, their numbers would be even greater than the number of animal species we know today, and everywhere the world should be full of their fossil remains.

Says who? These "intermediate" forms were still "evolving" so they probably were not very successful. They would have died very quickly, only the fittest surviving.

Definitely not. Quite the contrary, animals have been very different and complex since the moment they first emerged. All the animal phyla known today emerged at the same time, in the middle of the geological period known as the Cambrian Age. The Cambrian Age is a geological period estimated to have lasted some 65 million years, approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of the Cambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."

And yes, they did have five million years. That's still a lot of time. Humans weren't even really Homo Sapien Sapiens yet. Given also the 65 million years for transition I suppose they had a good deal of time to evolve.

For instance, it is quite wrong to suggest that "Rejecting the theory of evolution means rejecting the biological and geological sciences and the discoveries of physics and chemistry." Because in order to make such an inference (here a modus tollens) there need to be some propositions regarding chemical, physical, geological and biological discoveries that imply the theory of evolution. However, the discoveries, or statements of them, do not imply the theory. Therefore, they do not prove it.

Whoever said it was the basis of all of those theories?

 

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. The source of this variation is the genetic information possessed by the individuals within that species. As a result of breeding between those individuals, that genetic information comes together in later generations in different combinations. There is an exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of this is a wide variety of individual features.

Sounds close enough like evolution to me. They pass the new traits on and on if they're good.

Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.

 

Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.

Three or four percent is hardly anything. It still is odd how close they are, and you can still make the claims that they are similar.

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man. This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms!

So we're ignoring you have to add up to 100?

It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well.

Crap. Brick, iron, and cement may be building materials, but they are VERY different from each other. Horrible analogy.

The first is, "How did dinosaurs come to grow wings?" The second is, "Why is there no sign of such a development in the fossil record?"

Just because we have hardly found any out of all of the zillions of fossils doesn't mean they don't exist. Occasionally one of those "transitional" creatures is found as well.

How did flies' flight system, that is much more efficient than that of a helicopter, which is in turn modelled on them, come about?

How in the heck is a helicopter modeled on a fly? And where did this idea that they are more efficient come from? I'd like sources here.

Morevoer, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird in the true sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archaeopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."31 Paleontologist Robert Carroll further explains the subject:

 

The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds,

It's still not quite like modern birds, is it? It's also similar to dinosaurs in hip structure and such.

 

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and-although there is some evolutionist wishful thinking on the opposite direction-dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.

Many people believe that dinosaurs were warm-blooded at well, or at least some of them. The ones that evolved into birds, maybe.

Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists are wrong to say that these teeth are reptilian characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archaeopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both during the time of Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth."

Aha! You see, those birds died out! Evolution again!

And it doesn't tell us when they died out either. No real information here.

The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.33 These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.

So teeth are so very important, eh? Tell me this: Isn't it possible that this was part of the evolution from dinosaur to bird?

The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," put forward by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the nineteenth century. This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorised that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displays the characteristics of a fish, then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human. The claim that the embryo possesses "gills" while it develops stems from this thesis.

This is the eighteenth century here. Theory has changed since then.

 

I can't be bothered to go further, as I have to go. I may drop by again and continue, but I suppose this would be enough for a while.

[swansont]

"It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell' date=' or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell."

 

Balderdash. Just because it's very unlikely to happen does [i']not[/i] mean that it is impossible. The creation of life took millions of years, and I'm sure that in that time it would have happened sometime or another.

 

Don't even have to go that far. The results of chemistry aren't random. Take two parts H and one part O, add a spark, and you don't get a random distribution of molecules. You get H₂O.

 

Second, it is impossible to prove anything of this sort by statistics. The probability of a past event occurring is 1. If it were otherwise, it would be trivial to prove that any given person was never born, because of all the unlikely events that occur in their ancestors' lives.

 

---

 

I wonder if the original poster is one of the people who lie about science and know it's a lie, or one of the people who perpetuate the lie because they didn't have the intellectual honesty to check if the information was correct.

[swansont]

Well, if you believe that we are descended from Adam and Eve, with a genetic bottleneck at Noah and his family, I would offer the HLA gene as an example. Humans have 59 alleles of this gene. The maximum you can get from two people is 4, so some mutatin' must have happened!

[blike]

Btw, antibiotic resistance is a classic example of beneficial mutations. Bacteria replicate extremely fast, and are thus a good model for studying genetic diversity and adaptation.

 

Nonetheless, you seem to be looking for a beneficial genetic mutation in humans:

Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567. "PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants," by Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.

 

Abstract:

 

Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) plasma levels have been consistently related to a polymorphism (4G/5G) of the PAI-1 gene. The renin-angiotensin pathway plays a role in the regulation of PAI-1 plasma levels. An insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been related to plasma and cellular ACE levels. In 1032 employees (446 men and 586 women; 22 to 66 years old) of a hospital in southern Italy, we investigated the association between PAI-1 4G/5G and the ACE I/D gene variants and plasma PAI-1 antigen levels. None of the individuals enrolled had clinical evidence of atherosclerosis. In univariate analysis, PAI-1 levels were significantly higher in men (P<.001), alcohol drinkers (P<.001), smokers (P=.009), and homozygotes for the PAI-1 gene deletion allele(4G/4G) (P=.012). Multivariate analysis documented the independent effect on PAI-1 plasma levels of body mass index (P<.001), triglycerides (P<.001), sex (P<.001), PAI-1 4G/5G polymorphism (P=.019), smoking habit (P=.041), and ACE I/D genotype (P=.042). Thus, in addition to the markers of insulin resistance and smoking habit, gene variants of PAI-1 and ACE account for a significant portion of the between-individual variability of circulating PAI-1 antigen concentrations in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis.

 

N Engl J Med 1998 Jan 8;338(2):79-85

 

Polymorphisms in the coagulation factor VII gene and the risk of myocardial infarction.

 

Iacoviello L, Di Castelnuovo A, De Knijff P, D'Orazio A, Amore C, Arboretti R, Kluft C, Benedetta Donati M Department of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Santa Maria Imbaro, Italy.

 

BACKGROUND: High blood levels of coagulation factor VII are associated with a risk of ischemic vascular disease. Although factor VII levels may be genetically determined, the relation between genetic polymorphisms of factor VII, factor VII blood levels, and the risk of myocardial infarction has not been established. METHODS: We performed a case-control study of 165 patients with familial myocardial infarction (mean [+/-SD] age, 55+/-9 years) and 225 controls without a personal or family history of cardiovascular disease (mean age, 56+/-8 years). The polymorphisms involving R353Q and hypervariable region 4 of the factor VII gene were studied. Factor VII clotting activity and antigen levels were also measured. RESULTS: Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratios, 0.08 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.9] and 0.22 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.63], respectively). For the R353Q polymorphism, the RR genotype was associated with the highest risk, followed by the RQ genotype and then by the QQ genotype (P<0.001). For the polymorphism involving hypervariable region 4, the combined H7H5 and H6H5 genotypes were associated with the highest risk, followed in descending order by the H6H6, H6H7, and H7H7 genotypes (P<0.001). Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had lower levels of both factor VII antigen and factor VII clotting activity than those with the RR or H6H6 genotype. Patients with the lowest level of factor VII clotting activity had a lower risk of myocardial infarction than those with the highest level (odds ratio, 0.13; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that certain polymorphisms of the factor VII gene may influence the risk of myocardial infarction. It is possible that this effect may be mediated by alterations in factor VII levels.

[Sayonara]

I suspect this is just one of those people who doesn't know what mutation actually means in an evolutionary context.

 

Also I am sure we have had this discussion before with some other lunatic.

[Mokele]

Also I am sure we have had this discussion before with some other lunatic.

 

Of course, that's why I gave up fighting with creationists. I could spend half an hour on a well-thought-out post that demolishes their arguement, and even if they accept it, 2 weeks later a new one will appear with the same arguement.

 

It's like Night of The Living Dead Arguements with these people.

[RICHARDBATTY]

I would like to know the reason for trying to exclued bacteria. I heard of an instance where bacteria studied in a lab changed so much it became almost dependant on anti biotics for survival. If thats not evolving to suit the enviroment what is?.

[Gilded]

"I heard of an instance where bacteria studied in a lab changed so much it became almost dependant on anti biotics for survival."

 

Rofl, I had a funny mental image of a hobo-looking micro-organism saying "I need my penicillin, man!"

[RICHARDBATTY]

"I heard of an instance where bacteria studied in a lab changed so much it became almost dependant on anti biotics for survival."

 

Rofl' date=' I had a funny mental image of a hobo-looking micro-organism saying "I need my penicillin, man!" [/quote']LOL

[RICHARDBATTY]

I don,t know if this is the right place or if its been done before but what would it take to create a cell. Maybe the first cell didn,t have a membrane and just formed a large amount of celular material in a crevice in a rock. What would be required to make a protein and what about reproduction.

[iglak]

"It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick' date=' iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well."

 

 

Crap. Brick, iron, and cement may be building materials, but they are VERY different from each other. Horrible analogy.[/quote']

actually, that's a pretty good analogy. where each material is an organ; lifespan is determined by how long it takes to be destroyed; reproductive capability is determined by how attractive it is, and it's lifespan; and the contractor and buyer are the mother and father.

 

if it's poorly made, or unattractive, it is unlikely that the contractor will be called on to make another house, unless he gets lucky and finds someone that doesn't care or doesn't know. if the building is poorly made, it is more likely to collapse. in any case of a collapse, the plans for the building will be studied to avoid what went wrong in the future, then scrapped. the surviving buildings' plans are recreated to make newer buildings. if one material is made incorrectly or isn't propperly placed, the bulding will be deformed of have problems staying "alive". if the wiring or plumbing aren't done well, the building can't function, and no one would want to buy it. every once in a while, a new material will be discovered, or will be made usable, and has potential to completely change the design of a building, but you will still find small dealers that make buildings the old way. if there's some major climate change, such as regulations on materials, or banning certain materials for safety, then buildings will also change accordingly, and the old buildings' plans will be scrapped, and the old buildings might be torn down.

 

the only problem i can see with this analogy is that there's no place for horomones and mobile cells, but it's still very useful to explain natural selection and evolution.