One positive mutation?

Question

I'm fed up with creationists saying mutations are always deleterious. Surely there must be at least on recorded example of a benign mutation (in the lab or something).

Answer 1

Benign mutations are all around us. It's the basic principle of evolution! How humans evolved to become so intelligent, how animals adapt to their environment, and how plants have evolved from simple organisms to autotrophs have all depended on mutations to get here. And then there are random mutations that affect the non-coding regions of DNA or replace a coding section with a redundant codon or affect an intron. They don't do anything bad...but they also have no effect on us at all. But for record purposes, here's a link to a recorded "benign" (in this case meaning helpful) mutation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-.CE.9432

A mutation here gives bearers AIDS resistance.

Answer 2

Evolution is modified inheritance, and inheritance can only be modified through mutation. All species have evolved from the first cell through mutation, but obviously, a creationist would say that God made it possible. Mutations happen all the time, and yes, most are either deleterious or innocuous, that is to say, they don't produce any change. But, I'll give you more solid examples. Bacteria actually mutate when they want to, they can take DNA from their surroundings, "eat" it and then incorporate it into their own DNA. This way, bacteria mutate and can gain resistance to antibiotics. For humans, this is a complete disaster, but for bacteria, this is a HUGE advantage. When the resistan bacteria reproduces, it inherits the antibiotic resistance. There is enough proof of this, ask any doctor (or rather, have the creationist ask).
A big mutation is thought to be the cause for our appearance as species on Earth. By means of a Robertsonian traslocation (a big part of one chromosome interchanged with a smaller part of another chromosome) apes mutated and gave origin to us. This kind of mutation is responsible for some of the Down syndrome people, so it is really documented.

Answer 3

Yihua L's answer is exactly correct. Benign (or more correctly, *beneficial*) mutations are all around us.

Simple example: Why do we need a new flu shot every year? Because the viruses that propagated best last year are the ones that developed a mutation that gave them immunity to last-year's flu shot.

That immunity can *only* come from one source ... a mutation.

That is certainly a benign (or more correctly *beneficial*) mutation *for the virus* (although it is not benign to us).

I've had creationists reply that the immunity is not a result of a mutation, but rather that the gene that conferred immunity was already there in the virus. However, that means that God must have created viruses at the moment of Creation, and hidden in them the genes for immunity for every vaccine that *ever would be invented by man*! (Yes, that includes all the flu vaccines that we have not yet developed.) I have asked creationists to qualify if they really believe God did this ... and I have never gotten a reply.

Answer 4

Every "benign" gene ("allele" is the correct term, alleles being alternative forms of a given gene) in your body is the result of a mutation. That is how all genes (alleles) arise - by the mutation of previously existing forms. The benign ones tend to be passed on to future generations, the deleterious ones not (because the individual carrying them is less likely to survive and produce its own offspring).
That said, whether the effects of an allele are benign or not depends...on many things. A mutation that gives rise to warty noses would be advantageous in a world where warty noses were, say, particularly attractive to the opposite sex.
Hope this helps.

Answer 5

Other contributors have already mentioned beneficial mutations such as the sickle gene and the possible mutation that gives resistance to HIV. These mutations allow the organism to survive when others die and so these people reproduce and pass on their superior gene to the next generation. A benign mutation means it is neither beneficial or harmful, the best example I can think of is the budgerigar!! Budgies are yellow/green in their normal environment, but suddenly a blue one appeared (spontaneous mutation). It didn't seem to harm the creature so it lived to reproduce and hey presto now there are lots of blue budgies!!

Answer 6

Whether a mutiation is positive or negative always depends on the context or in other words the environment the organisms lives in.
Take the example of sickle cell anemia. ppl with this single base pair exchange in the hemoglobin gene have a higher risk of blood clots and cant transport oxygen that well anymore. So under normal lets say Northern American conditions the mutation would put them at a disadvantage over other ppl with normal blood cells.
But lets change the environment and go to Africa where ppl are exposed to malaria infections. Here, individuals with this mutation actually have a better chance to survive an infection because the malaria parasites cant reproduce that well in their blood.
My point is that it really depends always on the environment. Arguably for ppl exposed to malaria, the mutation causing sickle cell anemia is actually postivie.

Answer 7

Who cares what creationists say?

Mutations are random. Whether they end up being benign or harmful is a matter of random chance. The Giraffe's long neck is benign, in the conext of scarce food resources. In the context of low ceilings it would have been harmful.

Answer 8

Fraid not. All observed mutations are information neutral or lossy.
Why are you fed up with people pointing out the truth? Does the truth not fit with your evolutionary philosophical (religious) ideas perhaps?

It is not a question of a mutation being benign - the key for evolution is that mutations must add genetic information.

Richard Dawkins was asked to give an example on film.
He was asked the question:
‘Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?’
After 10 seconds of silence he asked for the camera to be turned off!

But good idea to examine the evidence - check here for disappointing news for you :)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3026/


By the way, finches beaks are nothing to do with evolution via mutation. They are an example of Natural Selection acting on preexisting genetic information.

Beneficial mutations are *not* the same as information adding mutations. Sickle cell anemia is *not* evolution. The effected cells are damaged/mutant. Even thogh they confer some advantage (defence against malaria), they can hardly be described as an advance.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/901

Come on evolutionists, raise your game.

For secresauce above:

Not sure I quite understand your logic. Creationists certainly do not claim that immunity for every vaccine must be hidden in the genes of viruses.

Creationists believe that the genetic information in viruses was created in the beginning. Viruses have an important role to play in ecology. The harmful effects came about as a result of the Fall.
Your question is answered in full here
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1686/

Lots of other articles about viruses here
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=did+god+create+viruses&btnG=Search

Answer 9

No there is no such thing as a benign mutation.

Answer 10

am i able to ask you the way you will possibly draw the line between macro-evolution and micro-evolution? If adequate small-scale (micro-evolutionary) modifications acquire interior a inhabitants, then the inhabitants will for sure grow to be very diverse (macro-evolution) than the unique inhabitants. If I step an inch an afternoon, i visit finally stroll a mile. the occasion of nylon-eating micro organism, which you scoff at, is an glaring, great-scale substitute. Nylon did no longer exist until eventually the Nineteen Thirties - so there can not have been any gene already latest in the bacterial inhabitants able to digesting it. yet this manner of gene has developed into life in view that then. you in addition to mght ask for an occasion of micro organism evolving right into a "bigger species". by using what standards are you defining a "bigger species"? What does "bigger" even mean in this context? There are extra E. coli in purely *your* intestines than there are human beings in the worldwide - so by using numbers, they are lots extra effective than human beings. Is that "extreme" adequate for you? > "coach me how slime grew to become into DNA" it fairly is a query on the foundation of existence - which evolution would not attempt to handle (see "Abiogenesis" for the sector of technological information exploring that). So it fairly is somewhat not an obection to the thought of evolution. it fairly is physically powerful which you settle for the thought of the massive Bang. it fairly is much extra effective which you do no longer confuse it with the thought of evolution (as such lots of creationists do). do no longer make the comparable mistake with Abiogenesis. one ingredient worth declaring is that there is a lot, lots extra helping evidence for evolution than there is for the massive Bang. in case you're rational adequate to settle for the massive Bang, there might desire to be no clarification why you may not settle for evolution.