• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution and Creation an Honest Question

KevinM

Student
K
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
45
Hey I'm personally a christian who believes in evolution. One question I've often heard though I don't know a good answer for. Simply put a lot of creationists say that there is no known examples of a beneficial mutation. Can any one give me an example? I"m not saying it proves or disproves any thing but its a good question.
 
KevinM said:
Hey I'm personally a christian who believes in evolution. One question I've often heard though I don't know a good answer for. Simply put a lot of creationists say that there is no known examples of a beneficial mutation. Can any one give me an example? I"m not saying it proves or disproves any thing but its a good question.
Click to expand...

Two classic examples are the phase-shift mutation that was observed to give bacteria the ability to digest nylon, and the (presumed) gene-duplication event that gave primates color vision.

Of course, from a bacterium's point of view, a mutation that gives one resistance to antibiotics (one that has been far too often observed, from our point of view) is extremely beneficial.
 
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

This was achieved via a google search. You might want to google a little and then search the threads here a bit before you post new threads. Once you get to some new ground or perhaps encounter something that you're having trouble understanding then it would be more fruitful for you to post.

I'm certainly not trying to stifle your posting, but a little bit of effort might go a long way in your researching an issue like evolution which involves such a vast amount of data.
 
MWare said:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

This was achieved via a google search. You might want to google a little and then search the threads here a bit before you post new threads. Once you get to some new ground or perhaps encounter something that you're having trouble understanding then it would be more fruitful for you to post.

I'm certainly not trying to stifle your posting, but a little bit of effort might go a long way in your researching an issue like evolution which involves such a vast amount of data.
Click to expand...

DERAIL WARNING

You know, I bet one could make a degree on studying this particular phenomena of asking a forum when you could easily have found the subject oin the net. I personally think there are several reasons for this, but I won't go into that. Perhaps we could make a separate thread to discuss this?

Also, I find that searching the net by use of Google, etc. can be extremely tedious when it comes to certain topics, as the misinformation may far outweigh the information and take up the first couple of pages. For this reason, I never Google anything evolution-related, to give one rather relevant example. I prefer starting with Talk Origins and working from there. And not everyone's aware of Talk Origins, after all. Of course, you managed to find the info quickly enough (or so it seems, I have no idea if you went through a lot of misses to find the hit).
In other words, while I do understand that while normally searching the web is much quicker, sometimes it may be better to ask in a place likely to have people with the real knowledge.

Oh, and last I checked, the forum search for this forum was still a bloody and unreliable mess. I blame Darat.
 
The NEt

As a whole is full of misinformation and piles of useless hits. I find asking a message board of people who are(From what I've seen) inteligent and interested in the subject simply because it saves the wasted time of reading sites written by people who are about as scientific as a flat earther.
 
It should be remebered that due to chapherone protiens and the like an awful lot of mutations have no effect whatsoever.
 
I thought sickle cell anemia was an example.

Obviously, sucks to have the disease; unless you're in an environment where everyone else is dying of malaria.
 
Thats

an interesting point. The one thing I've seen observed of sickle cell is that while yes it gives you virtual immunity to malaria its a devistating disease in its own right. It doesn't really seem to be that advantegous.
 
KevinM said:
The one thing I've seen observed of sickle cell is that while yes it gives you virtual immunity to malaria its a devistating disease in its own right. It doesn't really seem to be that advantegous.
Click to expand...
Sickle cell is a good example, because it really drives home the critical point: that "advantageous" is defined by current, local conditions.
 
The Problem

thats inevitably pointed out is the question of the long haul. Its true that in the short term it can allow that person to outsurvive another against malaria. In the long run though it doesn't help the species surivve. For a good example of a beneficial mutation some thing clear cut and proven is a better choice then a disease that will save a person one day and endanger his life the next.
 
KevinM said:
thats inevitably pointed out is the question of the long haul. Its true that in the short term it can allow that person to outsurvive another against malaria. In the long run though it doesn't help the species surivve.
Click to expand...

Yeas it does. Loseing one in four kids to sickle cell is better than loseing 4 in four kids to malaria.
 
Answers in Genesis and others stepping up attempts to misinform (billboard links to site that links to Answers in Genesis as "link to scientists"
http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/2006/mar/23/77309/

billboard.jpg


http://www.scienceprovesit.com/
 
But

would humanity survive better with sickle cell anemia? Thats the problem to most creationists. In the grander scheme its still a disease that inflicts a great deal of pain and kills people. As many as malaria? no. Then again unless I'm mistaken sickle cell isn't nearly as wide spread.
 
But

would humanity survive better with sickle cell anemia? Thats the problem to most creationists. In the grander scheme its still a disease that inflicts a great deal of pain and kills people. As many as malaria? no. Then again unless I'm mistaken sickle cell isn't nearly as wide spread.
 
Sickle cell is an example of one of the points I've seen made. Some mutations that can be advantageous also have a massive draw back. Its hard for most people(myself included to be completely honest) to see mutations like sickle cell as a desirable trait for a new species.
 
KevinM said:
an interesting point. The one thing I've seen observed of sickle cell is that while yes it gives you virtual immunity to malaria its a devistating disease in its own right. It doesn't really seem to be that advantegous.
Click to expand...
Being heterozygous for the mutation protects against malaria. Being homozygous (having two copies) causes sickle cell anemia with varying degrees of disability. The mutation originated in Africa and is believed to have spread through the population because of the malaria protection effect. But not everyone carries the gene--In matings where both are known to carry the gene, we see the typical autosomal recessive pattern--25% of the time the child will be homozygous (have two copies and be affected), 50% will be heterozygous (and have extra malarial protection) and 25% will not even be carriers--that is, they will not have a copy of the gene at all.

Remember, what is "beneficial" from a genes point of view, is not necessarily beneficial from a humans point of view. What makes a person more likely to live and produce multiple offspring is what a gene considers beneficial --whether it's an uncontrollable sex drive, poor impulse control, stupidity, or a love of children. Of course, mutations that humans find beneficial are widely available. There is a family of Italian people who have a mutation that makes them immune to problems caused by high cholesterol and saturated fats. There's a super strong german kid who has a double mutation is a muscle related gene. Anyone who is exceptionally beautiful, atheletic, or intellegent, probably carries a mutation that factors in the observed differences. Intelligence, itself, is highly heritable and all genes factored into that equation are beneficial mutations if you find intelligence beneficial.

(Carriers of sickle cell anemia are not affected by the disease but they are protected against malaria...) Creationists seem very confused as to what is meant by "beneficial" and also in regards to "adding info. to the genome". Your question makes me wonder if you belong to this dishonest group. If so, then I suggest you came here to preach and not to learn and it's dishonest to waste peoples' time.

Even dog breeds (all decendents of wolves and still the same species in that they can breed and produce viable offspring) show beneficial mutations (at least that which humans find beneficial...)
 
Last edited:
KevinM said:
In the long run though it doesn't help the species surivve.
Click to expand...
What makes some of this tricky is that we have a tendency to impose a human perspective on a blind, undirected process, without even realizing we are doing so. A notion such as "helping the species survive over the long haul" is a good example of this sort of hidden assumption. Evolution doesn't care whether a species survives over the long run or not. If something works in the short term, it gets play. If it happens to work over the long run, that's just dumb luck (and nothing works "over the long run" anyway, if the "long" is long enough).
 
KevinM said:
Sickle cell is an example of one of the points I've seen made. Some mutations that can be advantageous also have a massive draw back. Its hard for most people(myself included to be completely honest) to see mutations like sickle cell as a desirable trait for a new species.
Click to expand...
Well it allows you to procreate which is the primary purpose of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom