Experiment shows evolution can sometimes be surprisingly predictable

Originally posted by humy
I agree with much of what you say here.

As a rule, mutation is far more likely to be harmful than helpful to adaptation and I think it gets too much emphasis.

the vast majority of mutations are harmful so will not help in adaptation.
However, it isn't the vast majority of mutations that are harmful that counts here -these ones literal ...[text shortened]... l never evolve to have that antifreeze protein even if having it would be the only way forward.

What mutation has ever been beneficial?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What mutation has ever been beneficial?

oh came on, you cannot be serious. Is this just an attempt at a sudden distraction from the fact that I have debunked your flawed 'deduction' that God had something to do with it? _I think it might be.

-anyway, OK, for what it is worth:
The experiment which the OP is about is one example of possibly many such mutations.
There are, of course, numerous examples of mutations beneficial to bacteria such as antibiotic resistance etc.
And there are at least two examples of mutations that have independently given mosquitoes DDT resistance -DDT being man-made and not found in nature means those mutations would have no known useful function in the absence of DDT before DDT use and there is every reason to believe that those mutations didn't exist before DDT use for there is absolutely no evidence that they existed before DDT.

There are numerous examples of useful mutations in plants, humans and many other animals:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Beneficial_mutation#Vivid_examples_of_beneficial_mutations
"...Vivid examples of beneficial mutations

Lactose tolerance - why humans with significant European ancestry can digest milk as adults.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria - at least beneficial from the point of view of the bacteria.
Radiation resistant fungi[1] (and perhaps other lifeforms) inside Chernobyl
"German Superboy",[2] an individual example of a human mutation that not only doesn't cause any visible disfigurement or impairment, but if anything will probably make it easier to maintain a muscular physique and/or low weight. These are characteristics that could be considered desirable in the modern day, when food is abundant.
The ccr5-Δ32 mutation confers HIV-1 resistance to those with a double copy of the allele (homozygous) [3]. The mutation also confers resistance to plague and smallpox while increasing susceptibility to west nile virus.[4][5][6]
..."

I find this one quite interesting for it mentions, among other things, the newly evolved strain of nylon-eating bacteria:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html

some mutations are beneficial under some circumstances but harmful under other circumstance thus sometimes, but certainly by no means always, blurring the distinction between beneficial ones and harmful ones. Example: http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113&Itemid=81


in fact, there are many tens of thousands of known beneficial mutations documented and the list is growing all the time.

However, if you REALLY have the curiosity to wont to know the real truth (which I doubt, but I challenge you to surprise me!), just forget all the above for a moment but also just close your Bible for just one moment, stop looking at your religious calendar and leave behind all your religious prejudices against science just for one moment and patiently read through all of this link that really explains the whole issue of mutations properly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Originally posted by humy
oh came on, you cannot be serious. Is this just an attempt at a sudden distraction from the fact that I have debunked your flawed 'deduction' that God had something to do with it? _I think it might be.

-anyway, OK, for what it is worth:
The experiment which the OP is about is one example of possibly many such mutations.
There are, of course, numerous examp ...[text shortened]... the whole issue of mutations properly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

I believe these examples are adaptations and not really mutations. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe these examples are adaptations and not really mutations. 😏

They are both for the two are not mutually exclusive providing the mutations are beneficial.
And what you actually 'believe' is not what counts here but rather what you 'can rationally believe given the evidence and/or flawless logic' is all that counts.

Originally posted by humy
I agree with much of what you say here.

As a rule, mutation is far more likely to be harmful than helpful to adaptation and I think it gets too much emphasis.

the vast majority of mutations are harmful so will not help in adaptation.
However, it isn't the vast majority of mutations that are harmful that counts here -these ones literal ...[text shortened]... l never evolve to have that antifreeze protein even if having it would be the only way forward.

Thanks for your response. I also checked out the link to an article about mutation, which you fed to our resident troll. I have to go along with that material. Even so, I have noticed comments from Darwin forwards about the extent to which random variation and individual differences can provide a basis for adaptation and I think it is helpful to keep in mind that evolution is possible because of such differences.

Debating with creationists however is profoundly futile and I have abandoned such folly for several reasons. Much of what they say could be resolved by reference to simple textbooks, not only science as such but also history. Very litttle of what they say is in reality based on the contents of the Bible - rather, it is based on extrapolations and interpretations that are fanciful. If anyone were to read through, say, the Book of Genesis, what really strikes is that it has very little to say at all, one way or another. It just does not say enough to be worth the aggravation these people cause. Finally, it is evident that many sources for creationist arguments are telling deliberate, intentional lies, and people willing to lie their way through a debate are not worth debating with.

Originally posted by finnegan
Thanks for your response. I also checked out the link to an article about mutation, which you fed to our resident troll. I have to go along with that material. Even so, I have noticed comments from Darwin forwards about the extent to which random variation and individual differences can provide a basis for adaptation and I think it is helpful to keep in mi ...[text shortened]... entional lies, and people willing to lie their way through a debate are not worth debating with.

Agree. I don't know why I bother debating with creationists knowing that it will be futile -something psychological I guess -perhaps the need to 'put the record straight'.

Originally posted by humy
Agree. I don't know why I bother debating with creationists knowing that it will be futile -something psychological I guess -perhaps the need to 'put the record straight'.

That is what I am here for -- to put the record straight. God did it.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

😏

Originally posted by humy
Agree. I don't know why I bother debating with creationists knowing that it will be futile -something psychological I guess -perhaps the need to 'put the record straight'.

To be fair, it can be interesting to have a genuine debate with a creationist and it helps to sort out exactly what is implied by Natural Selection et al. However, the interest fades with time as you realise there is an inexhaustable willingness to stay confused.

Also interesting is to investigate the agencies that are putting out creationist propoganda, including lots of Youtube videos, and pin down who funds them and for what kind of political or other disturbing reasons. Frequently what requires debate is not Creationism versus Natural Selection but Creationism versus democracy.

With a troll, on the other hand, the concept of debate does not even arise.

Originally posted by finnegan
To be fair, it can be interesting to have a genuine debate with a creationist and it helps to sort out exactly what is implied by Natural Selection et al. However, the interest fades with time as you realise there is an inexhaustable willingness to stay confused.

Also interesting is to investigate the agencies that are putting out creationist propogand ...[text shortened]... ersus democracy.

With a troll, on the other hand, the concept of debate does not even arise.

Truth is truth and lies are lies regardless of how much they are debated. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is what I am here for -- to put the record straight. [b]God did it.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

😏[/b]

But it is no good trying to put the record straight if you are plain wrong about the record -you must first make sure you have your facts straight by first, in your case, making sure you have basic understanding of the science you criticize, which you have not only failed to have but have completely failed to even TRY to obtain, and with EVIDENCE and/or flawless LOGICAL deduction/induction neither of which you provide here on these forums -an endless stream of silly propaganda videos don't count as evidence.

Originally posted by humy
But it is no good trying to put the record straight if you are plain wrong about the record -you must first make sure you have your facts straight by first, in your case, making sure you have basic understanding of the science you criticize, which you have not only failed to have but have completely failed to even TRY to obtain, and with EVIDENCE and/or flawles ...[text shortened]... ide here on these forums -an endless stream of silly propaganda videos don't count as evidence.

The evil-lutionists were not concerned about having their facts straight when they committed fraud to support their hypothesis in order to elevate it to a theory. See my thread on Fraud in Evil-lution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The evil-lutionists were not concerned about having their facts straight when they committed fraud to support their hypothesis in order to elevate it to a theory. See my thread on Fraud in Evil-lution.

Can't get past the piltdown man hoax can you? Over a hundred years has gone by on that one and it proves to you all evolution science is false. Get over it. The dude was duly ridiculed in his day after the hoax was revealed. There are hoaxes going on all the time like crop circles where people with weak minds think that kind of thing MUST be coming from aliens, just like some people who believe the pyramids HAD to have been made with help from aliens, nevermind the pesky point about why aliens would WANT to do such a stupid thing.

You continue to use pseudoscience as a weapon, caring nothing for the actual growth of truth, you are only interested in winning the war against rationality by forcing everyone to become your brand of christian. Good luck with that. I see less and less christians every day and good riddance. I want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Can't get past the piltdown man hoax can you? Over a hundred years has gone by on that one and it proves to you all evolution science is false. Get over it. The dude was duly ridiculed in his day after the hoax was revealed. There are hoaxes going on all the time like crop circles where people with weak minds think that kind of thing MUST be coming from ali ...[text shortened]... s christians every day and good riddance. I want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion.

It is not just Piltdown Man, there has been a lot of proven fraud by the evil-lutionists. If fact the whole theory is a fraud and should never have been elevated above the level of a hypothesis.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not just Piltdown Man, there has been a lot of proven fraud by the evil-lutionists. If fact the whole theory is a fraud and should never have been elevated above the level of a hypothesis.

It is not just Piltdown Man, there has been a lot of proven fraud by the evil-lutionists.

-which is totally irrelevant to the fact that evolution is proven and there are proven examples of missing-link fossils that are clearly NOT fraudulent.
The flaw in your 'logic' is that you claiming here that just because there are lots of proven fraud that would otherwise would be seen as evidence for some hypothesis H then H must be false -where is the contradiction in H being true under those circumstance? -answer, there is none. And H has been proven in this case thus proving your 'logic' false.
There are a great many examples of tax-fraud, so, using the same kind of flawed logic you have just used here, the theory that governments get their money for funding state institutions from taxes is all a huge big lie/conspiracy because the numerous examples of tax-fraud 'proves' people don't pay taxes. And yet this conclusion is clearly false thus disproving your logic.

Originally posted by humy

It is not just Piltdown Man, there has been a lot of proven fraud by the evil-lutionists.

-which is totally irrelevant to the fact that evolution is proven and there are proven examples of missing-link fossils that are clearly NOT fraudulent.
The flaw in your 'logic' is that you claiming here that just because there are lots of proven fr ...[text shortened]... ple don't pay taxes. And yet this conclusion is clearly false thus disproving your logic.

Your logic is illogical. That is the same problem the evil-lutionists have and why they can not see the forest for the trees. God has staked his claim as creator and owner of the universe and all that is in it and there is no proof that it is not so. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the evil-lutionists to prove otherwise and they have failed miserably.