Mutation

Mutation is often stated as the way in which new traits enter into a population, which in turn is made dominant through natural selection (NS). Many, if not most, evolutionists believe that this is the way in which evolution operates.However I would challenge by saying that no beneficial mutation has ever been found. And even if there was some beneficial mutation, in order for NS to work it would have to be a mutation that benefitted the survival or reproduction of the organism.
If you have an example of a beneficial mutation, please post, cause I really don't think there are any (one of many reason I don't belive in evolution).[This message has been edited by Muhd, 04-05-2004]

We see beneficial mutations real-time. Birds on islands loose a soft shelled nut food source, off spring with harder/larger beaks to crack the shells of a tougher nut soon appear...these things have been observed in nature all the time and over only a few generations.

That is not a mutation. That is a trait that already existed in the population. Nothing new was introduced. The fact that that trait became dominant is an example of adaptation through natural selection.[This message has been edited by Muhd, 04-05-2004]

Oh really...thats only over a few generations....over a millenium it could end up being a snout to eat ants instead of a stronger beak...sooo...who really cares about mutations when it's adaptation over millinia anyway....thank you for making my point with such precision.

You're still not explaining how any new genes/traits came into existance.

I recommend you read and heed:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.aspYou're current argument is on that list with this comment: Of course the "no new information" bit is bogus too but we can get to that later.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Good, someone providing some valid examples.
Thanks for the link, that's very informative.
But like the article says, those are an example of losing traits and information, not gaining.Also, I really don't see the advantage of being blind. Granted, seeing in dark places isn't an advantage either, the point is that the fish doesn't gain an advantage. In the case of the beetle, he loses wings that he already had, he doesn't gain anything productive. This is an example of deterioration, not evolution.

It not a simple matter off losses and gains...it's adaptation....it's changes in nature driving critters to adapt. You are looking for why a man changed from a monkey into a man genetically and overnight. It didn't happen that way...it was a very long slow process (long and slow from our perspective....the blink of an eye on a universal scale).

You obviously did not read the article for content. Go back and try again. Look at who is posting that site. Do a little research.There are instances where organisms have lost a trait and then evolved it again. If both are "losses of information" that is not possible.Being blind in an environment where there is no light means that the energy spent on developing and maintaining eyes can be used for something else, like smell, that can help find prey or evade predator.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What is your definition of "beneficial"? I ask because if you're just going to define "beneficial" in such a way that no mutation could ever be beneficial, then there's no point in talking to you, right?Here's a start - biologists define "beneficial" as any mutation that allows an organism to generate more survivng progeny in a given environment. There's certainly plenty of examples of that: Are Mutations Harmful?Now, do you agree with this definition? If not, why not? And if not, why should we use your definition over the more useful biological one?

...because of mutation.Remember that mutation is random and not generally driven by environment. Natural selection selects for traits that already exist; it doesn't create mutations to select.The trait was selected for because the environment changed. You're right that the trait already existed before the environmental change; the reason it existed is because of mutation. Obviously. But the fact that it existed in the population at all was due to a mutation.

Then when you have finished reading the AiG page on what mistakes not to make, you can graduate to some science specific sites.As regards information increase this one
Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and InformationIt is long and rather technical and you can skip to the end conclusion, but the discussion does show that information must be increased by this mutation.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

First off, genetic traits don't have to be dominant to affect a population. The sickle cell mutation is one that causes blood cells to be shaped like a sickle instead of the normal round shape. It is a recessive gene, so a person with one copy does not have the bent shaped blood cells. When a person has the gene from both parents, then the blood is affected and the result is lethal. Those with one copy have higher survival rates when subject to malaria as compared to people with no copies.Second, mutations are not "made dominant" as they occur on dominant and recessive genes alike and the {dominance \ recessive} character is not normally changed by the mutation.Third, most mutations are not immediately relevant to survival and many may be neutral to survival and thus unaffected by natural selection.Finally, this is such a poor statement of any of the principles of evolution that you will not find any evolutionists using it to describe the process of evolution and does not include other mechanisms by which species change over time.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I don't think that's what he meant - I think by "dominant" he meant that the frequency of that allele in the population increases so that it's the most common. I don't think he was actually referring to genetic dominance.Insofar as he meant that evolution is a process by which some alleles increase in frequency within a population's gene pool as a result of natural selection, I think that's the view of every evolutionist, not just many or most.

(1) let him speak for himself instead of second guessing eh?(2) The word used was dominant, and that word has specific meaning in biology, especially when talking about inheretance of characteristics. Part of the problem with communication is the misuse of words.My point was that the phrase as written was not what a biologist would say.a trait is not "made dominant" rather a trait becomes more common through the process of natural selection.and it doesn't have to become the most common in a population either, it can remain in a varietal subset of the population that eventually accumulates with other changes to cause a speciation separation from the general population.All natural selection says about a mutation is that it survives while the surviving members possibly having an advantage or a disadvantage to future survival, but just as likely neutral initially.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}