Please give proof for an unambiguous beneficial mutation.

Please replace mentally “beneficial mutation” with “ambiguous beneficial mutation” in my arguments above.

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....rtid=14717

And in this study they do indeed state your 1 in 10,000 number, but also mention the fact that it is often negated by what they term “clonal interference” which in reality refers to the 100% polyfunctionality of the genome.

In other words your study is flawed in that it says: This is the rate of beneficial mutations (1 in 10,000): Yet at the same time they clearly state that the effect of the beneficial mutations is negated by other “beneficial mutations”.

Thus we are back to Garrish and Lenski’s 1 in 1,000,000 estimate for beneficial mutations being beneficial. Yet even in Garrish and Lenski’s study, I will maintain that the parent species will always be found to have more information.

In other words Hu, beneficial mutation studies always come with a flaw of some sort. When you dig deep enough you always find their flaw.

Since the study you cited was on e-coli, here is a paper that gives some detail to what I am talking about:

http://www.answersingenesis.or.....vation.asp

However, the situation changes if there’s a set of slightly beneficial mutations that together give a substantial advantage.

Please give proof for an unambiguous beneficial mutation.

I have failed to see any evidence for beneficial mutations.

The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or fa^tal to the life-form having the mutation! (Sanford; Genetic Entropy page 38)

“I have seen estimates of the incidence of beneficial mutations which range from one in one thousand up to one in one million. The best estimates seem to be one in one million (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998) Since neutral mutations can be inferred to almost never occur in a genome, then the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations seems to be one million to one.” (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, page 38: Note: this statement has been revised to reflect the evolutionary belief of some totally neutral mutations of Gerrish and Lenski)

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski.....Lenski.pdf

Even if there were totally neutral mutations, which is highly unlikely given the overwhelming interrelated complexity of the genome, Gerrish and Lenski most likely used a incomplete measure of fitness/information in order to arrive at their one in a million number for beneficial mutations. I maintain that their, one in a million, estimate for beneficial mutations is flawed and that ALL mutations to a genome will be found to be harmful/fatal when using a correct measure of fitness/information. The following articles points out this flaw, in measuring the total fitness/information of a organism, by evolutionary scientists and thus skewing the already crushing, but biased, mutational studies:

http://www.answersingenesis.or.....vation.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.or.....apter5.asp

” Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information.”

In fact, from consistent findings such as these, it is increasingly apparent that Genetic Entropy is the overriding foundational rule for all of biological life with no exceptions at all, and that belief in beneficial mutations is nothing more than wishful speculation that has no foundation in science whatsoever:

The foundational rule for biology can be stated like this:

All adaptations away from a parent species for a sub-species, which increase fitness to a particular environment, will always come at a loss of information from the parent species. (Note: At present viruses are excluded from this rule.)

Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

“It is entirely in line with the al nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes ally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation” H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA)

“But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.” Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology)

So Hu, please do give an unambiguous example of a beneficial mutation that has not in reality involved loss of either function or information, before you state beneficial mutations might occur!

Total number of replications where mutations are heritable is all that counts when probability of any certain mutation occuring is what you’re trying to ascertain.

Yes, that’s obvious. (Any realistic difference in mutation rates is clearly dwarfed by the difference in population sizes.) The same applies to any set of simultaneous mutations.

However, the situation changes if there’s a set of slightly beneficial mutations that together give a substantial advantage. In the huge population of P. falciparum, many mutations certainly keep occurring over and over again, but if there’s a number of them that individually have only a slight beneficial effect in the presence of chloroquine and none otherwise, they haven’t had the time to spread much, so there’s little overlap. A tiny fraction of the total number of replications can suffice to produce a suitable combination if selection has enough time to make the mutations prevalent. I gave a specific theoretical example.

Thanks for editing the FAQ. I’m just trying to help make sure that we use the standard terms when talking science. Not using the standard terms would detract from our credibility.

Re my comment [75], the moderation FAQ has been corrected.

Uh, you’re welcome?

Total number of replications where mutations are heritable is all that counts when probability of any certain mutation occuring is what you’re trying to ascertain.

If you’re looking for the probability of a “certain mutation” occurring, you’re looking for something that’s already happened, which means the probability is 1.

I don’t know enough to assess the debate between you and Hu. But I have to say, the term “generations” is misused all over the place here, and not just in this thread. Consider the moderation FAQ:

Behe’s latest work of analyzing what billions of trillions of generations of p.falciparum accomplished in the way of generating novel complexity without benefit of intelligent agency supports the prediction that only intelligent agency is capable of producing complex specified information.

When I search for “billions of trillions of generations” as a phrase, I get six hits. I think that, for each of those times, you really mean “replications.” Thanks. You probably don’t want to change the comments, ’cause that would erase the history, but you might want to change the “arguments not to use” page.