Thread: I need some help guys

I'm guessing that most of you have seen that youtube video of Dawkins stumped on a creationist question (which was later explained to be BS, but that's besides the point). The question was (paraphrasing) "Can you give an example of a mutation or evolutionary process shown to increase the information in the human genome?" I also read some quotes from an evolutionary scientist, Pierre-Paul Grasse, who said that there is no proof of mutations being beneficial and therefore evolution couldn't work through mutations. This is also supported by (ugh, I hate this guy) Michael Behe, who says in his new book that beneficiary mutations are too rare (or even non-existent) for evolution to work through them. With that said I haven't been able to find a whole lot of information or evidence on this except for creationist propaganda, which only consists of them repeating the same thing with nothing to back it up. Does anyone know where there is some concrete evidence or information from someone credible like Dawkins?

The common misconception is that evolution occurs from a beneficial mutation. This is not the case. In the case of a mutation that is more desirable than the norm, the subject is still able to mate with the rest of the species and so the mutation is worked in to the gene pool and either lost or used to change the species as a whole. New speciation occurs when a detrimental mutation occurs on a large enough scale so that the subject(s) are not allowed to mate with the normal population, but are able to mate amongst themselves, thus spreading the mutation, and eventually allowing them to adapt to new conditions. Take the evolution of homo-sapiens for instance. When the first homo-sapiens came in to existence they had a smaller frame, a weaker jaw and a more fragile bone structure than their predecessors. To a simian tribe used to hunting and eating raw meat, this would be a detriment and the individuals would be shunned from the group. They wouldn't have any clue that a larger brain could be used for benefit, all they knew is that the "mutants" were slower and weaker.

edit; just saw that you ask for evidence, I'll get to that but now I have to go to work. (chances are I'll be able to do it at work)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The common misconception is that evolution occurs from a beneficial mutation. This is not the case. In the case of a mutation that is more desirable than the norm, the subject is still able to mate with the rest of the species and so the mutation is worked in to the gene pool and either lost or used to change the species as a whole. New speciation occurs when a detrimental mutation occurs on a large enough scale so that the subject(s) are not allowed to mate with the normal population, but are able to mate amongst themselves, thus spreading the mutation, and eventually allowing them to adapt to new conditions. Take the evolution of homo-sapiens for instance. When the first homo-sapiens came in to existence they had a smaller frame, a weaker jaw and a more fragile bone structure than their predecessors. To a simian tribe used to hunting and eating raw meat, this would be a detriment and the individuals would be shunned from the group. They wouldn't have any clue that a larger brain could be used for benefit, all they knew is that the "mutants" were slower and weaker.

edit; just saw that you ask for evidence, I'll get to that but now I have to
go to work. (chances are I'll be able to do it at work)

Thanks for the reply Xaqaria, and I look forward to hearing the rest of your post

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

"Can you give an example of a mutation or evolutionary process shown to increase the information in the human genome?"

Off the top of my head, so without a reference: There are processes which cause genes to be repeated within the genome (mistakes during copying, genes which are transported within the genome, etc.) which cause additional copies of genes to be present. These copies can be worked on by mutations without detriment to the organisms carrying them; and when (rarely) a beneficial mutation is achieved, it can be propagated.

For example, the molecule hemoglobin: there are several copies of the genes that code for the proteins that make up hemoglobin. Some of these are used at different stages of development (a fetus has a different type of hemoglobin than an adult), some are found in people whom under certain circumstances, cause a disease, but under other circumstances protect the individual from malaria (hemoglobin S, the cause of sickle cell disease), and others which are totally non-functional genes that do not code for a protein at all, but are still recognizable as mutated copies of the hemoglobin gene. There are many other examples of these repeated and copied genes, available for "development" by evolution.

Does that answer the question?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Off the top of my head, so without a reference: There are processes which cause genes to be repeated within the genome (mistakes during copying, genes which are transported within the genome, etc.) which cause additional copies of genes to be present. These copies can be worked on by mutations without detriment to the organisms carrying them; and when (rarely) a beneficial mutation is achieved, it can be propagated.

For example, the molecule hemoglobin: there are several copies of the genes that code for the proteins that make up hemoglobin. Some of these are used at different stages of development (a fetus has a different type of hemoglobin than an adult), some are found in people whom under certain circumstances, cause a disease, but under other circumstances protect the individual from malaria (hemoglobin S, the cause of sickle cell disease), and others which are totally non-functional genes that do not code for a protein at all, but are still recognizable as mutated copies of the hemoglobin gene. There are many other examples of these repeated and copied genes, available for "development" by evolution.

Does that answer the question?

Pretty much, except for wanting a quote from someone credible.