Evolutionist: show me one positive mutation.............

Question

that helped a species. Dont give this bacteria micro-evolution c**p either, because i believe in micro evolution which is beneficial changes within the same DNA of the species. Show me a positive mutation at the macro scale, and i might believe this so called religion of evolution, which is so far based on faith.

Answer 1

At the very same time you are saying how "open-minded" and "rational" you are, you fail to see how your post clearly illustrates precisely the opposite!

For example, you start out by demanding a "positive mutation", which was a fully *rational* request ...  but when people provided examples, you then *amended* your request to the *IRRATIONAL* demand for a "positive mutation that branched a species into an entire different species."  

That amended demand was *IRRATIONAL* because *the theory of evolution has NEVER claimed that a single positive mutation is enough to "branch a species into an entire different species."*!  Never.  

Evolution is, and always has been since Darwin, the concept of MANY small mutations piled on small mutations, relentlessly culled by natural selection to only the beneficial mutations, for thousands upon thousands of generations.  

The fact that you fail to understand that ... and think that speciation is caused by a single "positive mutation", just reveals that you have rejected a theory that you don't understand *AT ALL*.

So by redefining evolution in an absurd way, and then crowing that we cannot come up with an example to fit your absurd redefinition ... you reveal yourself to be as absolutely closed-minded as any run-of-the-mill Creationist that we encounter here in the Biology forum 20 times a day.  

An open-minded person would recognize that the overwhelming *CONSENSUS* (not just majority) of scientists in the world absolutely endorse evolution as one of the two cornerstone theories of modern biology ... and would honestly wonder *WHY*.  Why would there be such an overwhelming consensus among the hundreds of thousands of professional scientists in the world ... pretty much anybody with a PhD. in biology, biochemistry, genetics, organic chemistry, paleontology, zoology, botany, etc. etc. ... endorse an idea without *CONSIDERABLE* amount of evidence?  Why would so many brilliant people agree on a concept as central as evolution, if it was as easily shown to be absurd as you seem to think it is?

If you were truly "open-minded" you would honestly ask that question.  

But you are clearly NOT "open-minded" at all.  Not in the slightest!

Answer 2

"I want evidence guys, not criticism." No, what you want is a forum to express your contempt for science - but what you've given us is a display of your own lack of understanding. There's no such thing as a "positive mutation at the macro-scale" only myriad point mutations at the micro-scale - that's evolution.

Here's some articles for you:

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4535.fu...

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4424.fu...

http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/12...

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4430.fu...

http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/13...

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprin...

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-Albert Einstein

Answer 3

A single mutation that helps a species would always be classified as microevolution, since a mutation is a change in the organism's genome.  

You just made a demand that is impossible to satisfy.

Mutations are always on the micro scale; it is the accumulation of mutations that leads to macroevolution, which is only arbitrarily different from microevolution.

The evidence for common descent is clear and support of evolution is far from faith.  The theory is used to produce invaluable data in the laboratory setting.

Edit: How about lizards that evolved to be largely vegetarian in about than 30 years?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

Answer 4

The first thing that comes to mind is the Miller-Urey experiment. Look it up on google! Diagrams will help show exactly what the setup is but basically, adenine, one of the 4 bases that make up DNA, was created, in a closed system laboratory experiment, using only the basic known elements/compounds present at the beginning of the earths creation. This shows that over time, in the right conditions, new compounds can be made, and the way these compounds interacted with each other is what created DNA and was the first stepping stone to life. If even one factor had have been different, such as temperature or the introduction or removal of another element everything would have been different; life may not have been made or something new and totally unfathomable could have occurred.

a good example of evolution on a 'macro' scale is the phenotype (physical looks) of a moth. Moths are nocturnal creatures, so during the day they need a method of defense against their predators -there defense is their ability to blend in to particular surroundings. Grey moths blend in very well on birch trees making it difficult for brids to see them. A mutation in the gene coding for the color of the moth caused a moth to be black. This mutation, though not advantagous, can be passed down to the proceeding generation so long as the moth survives long enough to mate. So more and more moths may emerge into the population, however they are selected against because they stand out to predators during the day. In one particular area a factory was erected and because of the factory all the trees in the area were covered with soot turning the white birch black. Now, the once selected against black phenotype of the moth is no longer detremental but rather, has be come advantageous; the black moth now blends in on the tree during the day. So in this particular area the black moths flourish and thrive and are now the dominant color of their species in that area. Meanwhile in another area somewhere else in the world birch trees remain white and the original gene -the 'white gene'- is the gene selected for in that environment.

This is an example of how a simple mutation of a gene in DNA can have a huge impact on a given species. However, this mutation is not one which lead to speciation - the creation of a new species. It is important to remember that evolution is not something we can observe in a lifetime. Evolution is a series of mutations that occur over time which get passed down to succeeding generations; each of which prove to be advantageous to the environment in which the organism lives. Most mutations result in detrimental affects to the individual. It is an extraordinary event when a benifical mutation occurs.

Evolution occurs as a result of environmental stress and beneficial mutations. Due to the fact that humans reproduction rate is extremely slow (9 months for Homo sapien vs 20mins for escherichia coli) as well as the fact that, as humans, we alter our environment to suit our needs rather than adapt to our environment based on environmental stressors, some argue that further evolution for humans not likely. However, some individuals have extraordinary capabilities, such as the case with individuals having "synesthesia". Synesthesia is a condition in which one type of external stimulation evokes a sensation of another. For example, for some people having this condition or 'ability' different sounds allow them to see different colors, or, in more rare cases, specific tastes or smells cause the individual to see specific colors. How is this advantageous you ask? Well in an evolutionary sense it may not be. We do not need this ability to survive in our environment, and because of the society we've created it does not give us an advantage for life over another person who does not have this 'ability' but you've got to admit, it's a cool ability and hard to fathom. Studies on individuals with synesthesia have shown some benefits to having synesthesia. When read a list of items and told to recall them, initially the synesthesia-capable individual does no better than the average person in recalling the items, but, when asked hours later they can recall the majority of the list; more than they initially remembered. They have the ability to not only associate the items they are hearing into the schemas for which they have created for them, but they also have colors associated to each word.

It is a possibility that in the future we will be able to 'induce evolution' by manually applying specific genes to the genetic makeup of an individual. Not only will it be possible to select hair color, eye color, and even gender, but it is also possible to include genes such as the one(s) for synesthesia into the unborn individual - a true act of "playing god"; although it doesn't seem at this point anybody is really "playing" anymore.

Answer 5

Trichromatic color vision.

This trait appeared after the ape and Old World monkey lineages split from the New World monkey lineages.  Howler monkeys have a unusual mutation that allows some females, but not males, to have trichromatic vision.  This is a classic in microevolutionary (DNA level) change distributing on the macroevolutionary (cladistic) scale.

The fact that you want a "mutation at the macro scale" shows that you are incompetent at reciting the Creationist pseudoscientific jargon.  No self-respecting Creationist would lie so feebly, mixing the terms they redefine to their convenience in such a way as to show their utter ignorance so blatantly.  You need more practice with lying, the religion of Creationism.

Answer 6

Look in a mirror, is what you see better than primordial slime?  Hang  in there tho, perhaps your genes will mutate and your children will be more sensible.  And yes I'm an Atheist, creationism is the religion, faith is belief without logic or evidence.

  

Answer 7

A good example of a mutation that causes a benefit in humans is the sickle-cell mutation.

People bearing the sickle-cell gene develop deformed haemoglobins which protects the person from malaria.  While this has the unfortunate side effect of causing sickle-cell anemia and limiting the person's lifespan, it does allow the person to survive and reproduce better than those without it in environments where malaria is common.

Answer 8

More and more people being born without the gene for wisdom teeth.

Same with people being born without a little toe, it has been squeezed out for generations by shoes.

Answer 9

again I am dumbfounded why so many creationists know so little about evolution.I guess alll those years listening to the brainwashing techniques of fundamentalists religions have washed out any vestige of actual original thought. Show me one ark ( either one ), one holy grail, one ..well even you get the drift..  You might want to read ( if you can ) about molecular clocks....they do a good job...showing evolution on a macroscale...Your argument from personal incredulity just points out how so very little that you know about science in general and evolution is particular.  

Answer 10

You seem to be of the "Since elephants never give birth to penguins, evolution must be wrong" school of creationism. Unhappily for you, evolution predicts no such things, and the fact that you argue that their absence disproves evolution only illustrates the depths of intellectual dishonesty creationists are willing to dredge.

Oh, and "don't give me any examples that actually prove the theory?" How dishonest can you get? This demand only illustrates that creationists aren't interested in actual facts and data at all, and that you've already made up your mind, and that any evidence for evolution that comes your way will be tossed aside with a mere, "oh, that's just microevolution."

Therefore, it is clear that any answer is wasted on you. However: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eatin...

Are you seriously prepared to argue that bacteria had the gene to digest nylon, a completely artificial compound, before the invention of nylon?

Answer 11

Can i ask you how you would draw the line between macro-evolution and micro-evolution?

If enough small-scale (micro-evolutionary) changes accumulate within a population, then the population will obviously become very different (macro-evolution) than the original population.

If I step an inch a day, I will eventually walk a mile.

The example of nylon-eating bacteria, which you scoff at, is an obvious, large-scale change. Nylon didn't exist until the 1930s - so there cannot have been any gene already existing in the bacterial population capable of digesting it. But such a gene has evolved into existence since then.

You also ask for an example of bacteria evolving into a "higher species". By what criteria are you defining a "higher species"? What does "higher" even mean in this context? There are more E. coli in just *your* intestines than there are people in the world - so by numbers, they are much more successful than humans. Is that "high" enough for you?

> "Show me how slime turned into DNA"

This is a question on the origin of life - which evolution does not attempt to address (see "Abiogenesis" for the field of science exploring that). So this is not an obection to the theory of evolution.

It is good that you accept the theory of the Big Bang. It is even better that you don't confuse it with the theory of evolution (as so many creationists do). Don't make the same mistake with Abiogenesis.

One thing worth pointing out is that there is much, much more supporting evidence for evolution than there is for the Big Bang. If you are rational enough to accept the big Bang, there should be no reason why you cannot accept evolution.

Answer 12

new hair color... NOT BAD

new eye color... NOT BAD

giraffee necks have been getting longer as a result of trees evolving to grow higher to avoid loosing leafs...

this technically good or maybe bad... ape to HUMAN!!

bad because there wasn't so much pollution or habitat destruction until we cam along...

FACE IT... evolution is real...!