Mutations?

[Mr.Mattress]

Firstly, if Sickle Cell is evolution, how come all of our species hasn't gotten it?

There are so many things wrong with this statement. I could try to write them all out but I'm really not interested in writing a book at the moment.

Or would Sickle Cell humans be different? Secondly, does this mean I can classify Sickle cell people as a different type of human? Like say "Homo Molocktovto (Rough Greek Translation)", or "Homo Nosson"?

Yes, if one group of humans evolves in a different direction from another, then you could consider them to be a different kind of creature. Unfortunately, this is the kind of argument that Hitler made about Jewish people.

Exactly, I know saying things like that are wrong. I was simply pointing it out that saying Sickle Cell is a Mutation, Positive or Negative isn't really a good thing. While Sickle Cell is a Mutation, we should treat it (Not the people who have it) as an Anemia or a disease, something we should strive to cure.

OT: I think Good Genetic Evolution would be us having Bigger Brains, Stronger Bodies, Bigger Hands, Opposable Toes, or better eyes.

Sure, but this would only work if these mutations resulted in more reproduction. But that doesn't seem to be the case nowadays. Go watch Idiocracy, (link to trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0 )

Yeah I know. Smart people with big hands and good eye sight aren't really repopulating, and Stronger Bodied people only date hot people (Unless they have some sort of fetish).

 

[RootbeerJello]

Nothing I've seen or read has lead me to believe that mutations are beneficial to evolution.

The first four results in google using "examples of beneficial mutations" yields these:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
examples of beneficial mutations
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

There are more, but you get the idea. A search using just the word "mutation" yields similar results, and I imagine any other similarly-worded search would give you the same. Quite frankly if you haven't been able to find examples of beneficial mutations, then you haven't tried very hard.

Great Jay-Z. Topic Discussion: "Q: What's a beneficial HUMAN mutation? More importantly, where can I find one?"

What language are you speaking? He gave you links. What the fuck do you want from us?

Ahem. What I mean is, elaborate. How do you define evolution and mutation, because there appears to be some sort of basic communication breakdown here.

Mr.Mattress:


daemon37:


Mr.Mattress:
Firstly, if Sickle Cell is evolution, how come all of our species hasn't gotten it?

There are so many things wrong with this statement. I could try to write them all out but I'm really not interested in writing a book at the moment.

Mr.Mattress:

Or would Sickle Cell humans be different? Secondly, does this mean I can classify Sickle cell people as a different type of human? Like say "Homo Molocktovto (Rough Greek Translation)", or "Homo Nosson"?

Yes, if one group of humans evolves in a different direction from another, then you could consider them to be a different kind of creature. Unfortunately, this is the kind of argument that Hitler made about Jewish people.

Exactly, I know saying things like that are wrong. I was simply pointing it out that saying Sickle Cell is a Mutation, Positive or Negative isn't really a good thing. While Sickle Cell is a Mutation, we should treat it (Not the people who have it) as an Anemia or a disease, something we should strive to cure.

Why? Sickle cell originated in Africa, because it helped counteract malaria, a disease Africa is still fucking lousy with. Sickle cell can lead to other problems, blood clots I believe, but that can be treated outside of Africa. In the places it came from, sickle cell is still effective and useful.

That's the logical answer, but your mentality is also all wrong. Are you saying we need to eradicate Sickle Cell simply because it's a mutation? That makes no fucking sense. Mutation is an ugly word with a bad reputation, but mutations run the gamut from deadly to life-saving. As I stated above, Sickle Cell is probably still saving lives, so just because it's a mutation doesn't mean that we need to get rid of it.

 

[RootbeerJello]

Whoops. Double post. My bad

 

[A Pious Cultist]

I should have specified. HUMAN mutation.

Sickle cell is human evolution. It gives a natural resistance to malaria, ergo beneficial.

Firstly, if Sickle Cell is evolution, how come all of our species hasn't gotten it? Or would Sickle Cell humans be different? Secondly, does this mean I can classify Sickle cell people as a different type of human? Like say "Homo Molocktovto (Rough Greek Translation)", or "Homo Nosson"?

OT: I think Good Genetic Evolution would be us having Bigger Brains, Stronger Bodies, Bigger Hands, Opposable Toes, or better eyes.

I never said it was evolution, just a mutation. Secondly, we gave up opposable toes to be able to walk upright and better vision to see in color.

I hate to say it but you're making yourself look ridiculous, you've just quoted yourself saying that SCA is "evolution". Dear oh dear.

 

[Nouw]

The blue eye color is a mutation.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Nothing I've seen or read has lead me to believe that mutations are beneficial to evolution.

The first four results in google using "examples of beneficial mutations" yields these:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
examples of beneficial mutations
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

There are more, but you get the idea. A search using just the word "mutation" yields similar results, and I imagine any other similarly-worded search would give you the same. Quite frankly if you haven't been able to find examples of beneficial mutations, then you haven't tried very hard.

Great Jay-Z. Topic Discussion: "Q: What's a beneficial HUMAN mutation? More importantly, where can I find one?"

What language are you speaking? He gave you links. What the fuck do you want from us?

Ahem. What I mean is, elaborate. How do you define evolution and mutation, because there appears to be some sort of basic communication breakdown here.

Mr.Mattress:


daemon37:


Mr.Mattress:
Firstly, if Sickle Cell is evolution, how come all of our species hasn't gotten it?

There are so many things wrong with this statement. I could try to write them all out but I'm really not interested in writing a book at the moment.

Mr.Mattress:

Or would Sickle Cell humans be different? Secondly, does this mean I can classify Sickle cell people as a different type of human? Like say "Homo Molocktovto (Rough Greek Translation)", or "Homo Nosson"?

Yes, if one group of humans evolves in a different direction from another, then you could consider them to be a different kind of creature. Unfortunately, this is the kind of argument that Hitler made about Jewish people.

Exactly, I know saying things like that are wrong. I was simply pointing it out that saying Sickle Cell is a Mutation, Positive or Negative isn't really a good thing. While Sickle Cell is a Mutation, we should treat it (Not the people who have it) as an Anemia or a disease, something we should strive to cure.

Why? Sickle cell originated in Africa, because it helped counteract malaria, a disease Africa is still fucking lousy with. Sickle cell can lead to other problems, blood clots I believe, but that can be treated outside of Africa. In the places it came from, sickle cell is still effective and useful.

That's the logical answer, but your mentality is also all wrong. Are you saying we need to eradicate Sickle Cell simply because it's a mutation? That makes no fucking sense. Mutation is an ugly word with a bad reputation, but mutations run the gamut from deadly to life-saving. As I stated above, Sickle Cell is probably still saving lives, so just because it's a mutation doesn't mean that we need to get rid of it.

Well I dunno, maybe because blood clotting is painful and maybe because it causes seizures, leg ulcers, Spontaneous Abortions, Priapism, Renel Failures and other troublesome things? I am not saying "Remove it because it's simply a Mutation", I am saying "Remove it because it causes major and deadly problems that outweigh anything good it does."

 

[zyoto12]

I smell a troll.

 

[SimuLord]

I wish mutations were more like they are in the comic books. Get some glowing green gunk on you, turn into superhero (or supervillain, or super mutant, but at any rate you turn super!)

 

[Thk13421]

Example of a beneficial mutation: Being able to digest milk during adulthood is a mutation, but because it is strictly beneficial, it is becoming more and more common in the human population, until eventually, almost all humans will posses that mutation.

Eventually, enough mutations like that will cause a race so genetically different from human beings that they cannot interbreed with humans, and a new species will be created. This is a process that takes millions of years.

 

[Composer]

At least your not throwing time into the equation.

So modern medicine plays no part in the healing of the sick?

I could agree if you said that the disease caused a MUTATION inside the person infected causing them to die off....

A much better example would be bacterial resistance to antibiotics. If you don't think Sickle Cell can be a positive mutation you're wrong. You're thinking in black and white terms. Environments are dynamic and may vary widely. The negative health effects of Sickle-Cell in heterozygous form are negligible, and this is actively selected for as evidenced by its prevalence. Hemoglobin wasn't "designed", your wording shows a clear lack of understanding.

your avatar
it hypnotizes me @.@

someone help me clarify if there was ever a use for tonsils?

 

[RootbeerJello]

Nothing I've seen or read has lead me to believe that mutations are beneficial to evolution.

The first four results in google using "examples of beneficial mutations" yields these:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
examples of beneficial mutations
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

There are more, but you get the idea. A search using just the word "mutation" yields similar results, and I imagine any other similarly-worded search would give you the same. Quite frankly if you haven't been able to find examples of beneficial mutations, then you haven't tried very hard.

Great Jay-Z. Topic Discussion: "Q: What's a beneficial HUMAN mutation? More importantly, where can I find one?"

What language are you speaking? He gave you links. What the fuck do you want from us?

Ahem. What I mean is, elaborate. How do you define evolution and mutation, because there appears to be some sort of basic communication breakdown here.

Mr.Mattress:


daemon37:


Mr.Mattress:
Firstly, if Sickle Cell is evolution, how come all of our species hasn't gotten it?

There are so many things wrong with this statement. I could try to write them all out but I'm really not interested in writing a book at the moment.

Mr.Mattress:

Or would Sickle Cell humans be different? Secondly, does this mean I can classify Sickle cell people as a different type of human? Like say "Homo Molocktovto (Rough Greek Translation)", or "Homo Nosson"?

Yes, if one group of humans evolves in a different direction from another, then you could consider them to be a different kind of creature. Unfortunately, this is the kind of argument that Hitler made about Jewish people.

Exactly, I know saying things like that are wrong. I was simply pointing it out that saying Sickle Cell is a Mutation, Positive or Negative isn't really a good thing. While Sickle Cell is a Mutation, we should treat it (Not the people who have it) as an Anemia or a disease, something we should strive to cure.

Why? Sickle cell originated in Africa, because it helped counteract malaria, a disease Africa is still fucking lousy with. Sickle cell can lead to other problems, blood clots I believe, but that can be treated outside of Africa. In the places it came from, sickle cell is still effective and useful.

That's the logical answer, but your mentality is also all wrong. Are you saying we need to eradicate Sickle Cell simply because it's a mutation? That makes no fucking sense. Mutation is an ugly word with a bad reputation, but mutations run the gamut from deadly to life-saving. As I stated above, Sickle Cell is probably still saving lives, so just because it's a mutation doesn't mean that we need to get rid of it.

Well I dunno, maybe because blood clotting is painful and maybe because it causes seizures, leg ulcers, Spontaneous Abortions, Priapism, Renel Failures and other troublesome things? I am not saying "Remove it because it's simply a Mutation", I am saying "Remove it because it causes major and deadly problems that outweigh anything good it does."

Blood clots are painful, but sickle cell is still definitely worth it. It stops a major disease even though it has a chance of causing pain and maybe death. Malaria is by far a bigger problem than blood clots.

 

[Free Thinker]

My genes are riddled with passive traits which aren't so helpful...
Colorblindness, the balding gene, disposition to cancer, and stroke.
...crap.

 

[icame]

Are you all biology majors or something..it might just be that i'm in grade 10 but much of this i have never even heard before...

 

[dorkette1990]

Well, we have oppossable thumbs, An upright gait allowing us to grasp things with our hands, and the brains necessary to create tools. Do those count?

But although we can walk upright, our spines are actually shaped more for quadraped locomotion (which is why are backs hurt all the time, actually)
OT: six fingers is technically a mutation, and it is actually a dominant gene, which says we SHOULD be evolving towards more fingers. However, it's such an undesirable trait to our societies that it isn't as widespread as genetics would have it. So yes, good mutation, there.

 

[jam.on.the.toasts]

Ok people to clarify, the marker that cause Sickle Cell you can have as homo or heterozygous if you have one marker for Sickle Cell but the other for normality you blood cells have a more curved shape this prevents malaria (something to do with the way it attaches to cells if I remember correctly) if however you have both matching markers indicating for Sickle Cell then it causes Sickle Cell Anaemia because the blood cells are far more curved and have a tenancy to harden and block blood vessels. And having Sickle Cell does not make you something different from a human you are still homo sapien sapien there is genetic diversity within a species.

Also it's my understanding that adaptations are more or less simply beneficial mutations however adaptations tend to be tailored to a specific environment and so what may be helpful in some places ( Sickle Cell in Malaria affected places) may have little use outside the place it adapted.

Another example like Sickle Cell is haemochromatosis a genetic marker that causes you draws extra iron from food that would have started as an a mutation that proved beneficial at the time and place however the modern iron rich diet has no need for the extra iron and so it can now cause issues by overloading on iron which in excessive ammounts is deposited in organs causing health problems.

also tonsils are part of the lymphatic system they have a use but we don't need them. (kind of like how you don't need two kidneys)

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

At least your not throwing time into the equation.

So modern medicine plays no part in the healing of the sick?

I could agree if you said that the disease caused a MUTATION inside the person infected causing them to die off....

A much better example would be bacterial resistance to antibiotics. If you don't think Sickle Cell can be a positive mutation you're wrong. You're thinking in black and white terms. Environments are dynamic and may vary widely. The negative health effects of Sickle-Cell in heterozygous form are negligible, and this is actively selected for as evidenced by its prevalence. Hemoglobin wasn't "designed", your wording shows a clear lack of understanding.

your avatar
it hypnotizes me @.@

someone help me clarify if there was ever a use for tonsils?

while someone is at it. How about your appendix, since i got mine removed last year, and it doesnt do anything.

 

[jam.on.the.toasts]

not doing anything and not doing anything vital are different, I vaguely remember learning what it actually did in human-bio, I could go grab my old notes if you would like?

 

[Balmong7]

The appendix is an evolution that we got rid of. it is currently believed that it was what kept raw meat from making us sick.

I can't quite figure out what the fight is about. Mutations no longer are seen as beneficial because we do not fight for survival or have any predators. So why would a mutation be seen as anything but harmful or pointless. This also means that every small mutation can be debated about its benefits.

 

[Superbeast]

I think the driving point that is being overlooked is how evolution works.

It does not solely pass on beneficial mutations, but rather prevents harmful mutations from being passed on (the individual is either sterile, is killed off by predators, or the mutation is non-sustainable and the organism dies). This means that whilst there may be no overt "good" mutations visible, there may be a great deal of "non inhibitory" mutations within the genes of the individual. For example, humans still have an appendix despite it having no known use to human life - because it is not inhibiting (given the ignorable rate of appendixes bursting over a population) it keeps getting passed on genetically.

It also seems that the OP is asking for major mutational changes, such as new biological structures, to appear in near-instantaneous (in terms of the length of time life has been on this planet) fashions. Many mutations are on a genetic level and will have no external (or harmful) expression, and any "macro" (god I hate that word in the context of evolution) changes are not going to be witnessable within human time-frames. They take millions of years, so it is not surprising that we haven't seen any lately (particularly in light of the fact that technology and society has meant that we no longer have such stringent selective pressures and thereby are not adapting at a more common natural rate).

As for explicitly asking for beneficial mutations...take a look at one of the theorised "common ancestors" between apes and humans...now take a look at yourself. There should be a great many "beneficial" mutations quite obvious to you!

In a more serious light, there is scientific evidence that people who are attracted to each other "smell good", and that this correlates to immunities to different diseases between the individual. This is an evolutionary advantage, as the offspring of the couple would (theoretically) be immune to all the diseases that both parents are. Heck, the immune system is a hugely beneficial mutation to all creatures that possess such - and we have seen it change in humans (new diseases come and go, and immunity is generated through adaptation of the immune system, and then adaptation of the pathogens to the altered immune system).

++EDIT++

Animal mutation, not human. Furthermore, mutations work against Natural Selection. It's why the green beetle gets eaten more often the the brown one. The brown beetle had a mutation that caused its shell to turn green.

This example highlights either wilful misinterpretation of evolution, or extreme ignorance.

The green beetle would indeed get eaten more than a brown one...unless the environment alters to be more green (so...a forest gets burned down, on the blackened remains the green beetle gets picked off more and the brown becomes dominant, but as the vegetation grows back the green beetle is equally camouflaged and can perhaps be identified as a new species if it adapted to develop new methods of hiding itself from predators in the "burnt years").

The example (that you provided) is natural selection in action, not mutations working against natural selection.

 

[kikon9]

Well, the hammerhead is a good example of a beneficial mutation. A mutation that caused the head to be shaped in a unique manner. The gene for the strange head was successful and was passed on to more and more offspring. Until we reach the present day in which we have the hammerhead species.
Also, Natural selection doesn't work using mutations. Just whichever ones survive pass on their genes. So, the genes that pass into the gene pools get more and more specialized and differentiate from the species that once was. This is the fundamental method of evolutionary change that occurs and causes genes (and thus DNA) to change slowly over millions of years.

Animal mutation, not human. Furthermore, mutations work against Natural Selection. It's why the green beetle gets eaten more often the the brown one. The brown beetle had a mutation that caused its shell to turn green.

You do realize that I said Natural Selection DOESN'T use mutations. Right?

Right. But without mutations, there's no evolution.

I just explained how evolution works using only natural selection. It just takes longer than mutation. Let me tell you an example step by step: Lets say there is a group of lion-like cats in a relatively warm environment. If the climate gets colder, the ones with the thickest fur will survive, causing the creatures thereon to have progressively thicker fur. At the same time, the ones with the lightest fur will blend with the snow better and hunt better because of it. So they get thicker, whiter fur. Then, the ones with the largest fangs get the most kills as well, modifying the gene pool even more. So the current collective gene pool will optimize now for: thicker fur, whiter fur, and bigger canines. More and more changes over time cause further and further differentiation from the original warm weather cat. Until, a million years later, the ancestors look completely different from their ancestors. Their DNA will be different and their physical build will be different. Evolution can occur without mutations.

And don't say "only humans" because why would only the absence of beneficial human mutations prove evolution wrong, when mutations are not the only driving force, and mutations (like the previously mentioned hammerhead) have happened in other species.