[DannyTN]

"It is "survival of the fittest" not the spontaneous appearance of the fittest."

I think that's the whole point of the article. Evolution implies both the spontaneous appearance of beneficial mutations, thus spontaneous appearance of the fitness as well as survival of the fittest.

But we don't see spontaneous appearance of beneficial mutations except when the mutation results in a loss of functionality and that loss of functionality is somehow beneficial as in the case of sickle cell anemia.

Bacterial resistance has been offered as spontaneous appearance of beneficial mutations. But this article examines that and rejects bacterial resistance as being the result of a beneficial mutation except for loss of functionality.

[ahayes]

See my post #12. You won't see the spontaneous appearance of beneficial mutations if you close your eyes. . .

[Ichneumon]

Evolution implies both the spontaneous appearance of beneficial mutations, thus spontaneous appearance of the fitness as well as survival of the fittest.

Correct. And both have been observed occurring.

But we don't see spontaneous appearance of beneficial mutations

Sure we do.

except when the mutation results in a loss of functionality and that loss of functionality is somehow beneficial as in the case of sickle cell anemia.

False. Please stop posting your ignorant misinformation as if you had a clue what in the hell you were talking about.

Bacterial resistance has been offered as spontaneous appearance of beneficial mutations.

Because it is.

But this article examines that and rejects bacterial resistance as being the result of a beneficial mutation except for loss of functionality.

Because the author is a dishonest creationist, who falsely spins the science in service of his theological agenda instead of fairly assessing it.

[tomzz]

But we don't see spontaneous appearance of beneficial mutations except when the mutation results in a loss of functionality and that loss of functionality is somehow beneficial as in the case of sickle cell anemia...

Glad somebody mentioned that. Aside from bacterial mutations which lose information, sickle-cell is the one other "beneficial mutation" we commonly hear about.

Sickle cell is supposed to confer some limited immunity to malaria but, when you think about it, shooting somebody through the head would prevent them from dying of malaria as well. You wouldn't call that "beneficial".

[longtermmemmory]

The author has no knowledge of legitimate science. A mutation is just that, a mutation.

Most times the mutation is meaningless.
Somtimes the mutation decreases survivability.
Somtimes the mutation increases survivability.

However the author's ignorance is demonstrated in his confusing the appearance with the ability to pass it on.

It is all a question of how does the mutation affect the ability to pass the gene to the next generation.