For any who care, here's a study about rates of "beneficial mutation".
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=14717I don't think they're using the same definition of 'mutation'. From the context, it appears they use the newer "any change, no matter what caused it" definition preferred by some evolutionists.
I doubt that this is an accurate statement since their definitions and statements of relative rates for "advantageous" and "deleterious" mutations provide references to genetics and molecular biology publications.
The logic behind your doubt is twice flawed. There is no reason to assume that a single definition of 'mutation' exists, even among "genetics and molecular biology publications." Even if it were so (which it demonstrably is not), that does not mean the imaginary single definition differs from that which I stated they were probably applying.
Irrationally, you proceed to maintain that the definition I said I thought was in use is both the one they used, and the one you prefer.
A mutation is basically a change in the DNA of an offspring organism where that arrangement of the DNA is not present in parent organism(s).
This differs greatly from the definition I offered earlier, which was ignored.
By design, life changes the code of offspring. My definition excludes changes to the code which result from the reproductive equipment and process(es) functioning properly, while yours includes them. One is specific and scientific; one is vague and antiscientific. One facilitates clear communication and the other facilitates obfuscation.
The article does state that beneficial mutations are rare. It even gives a rate for beneficial mutations. Too bad it doesn't say that the rate is a ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations. In fact, it seems to indicate that the rate is with respect to all reproductive events or at least all mutation events. So the article doesn't really support your contention that the rate of beneficial to harmful mutations is an extremely low ratio.
It addresses half of the issue. I never claimed it covered everything. Neither did I endorse its content.
At least we now have a definition for beneficial mutation.
Was one ever lacking? What you mean is that you have found a definition which you like.
Per the article: Advantageou mutations are mutations that "lead to a higher fitness and hence per definition to more offspring of their bearer."
And no wonder. Nothing could be more circular. "That which survives is more fit" must've inspired "that which reproduces in greater numbers is more fit".*
Carefully reading the report, one finds that that's exactly what they applied. They didn't bother to evaluate whether or not mutations were beneficial or not; rather they monitored "allele frequency distribution". Any mutation which increased in frequency was deemed "beneficial". And remember, they're including code changes which occur
by design as "mutations", per the propagandist definition.
This is nothing but wordplay. If a change took place which was detrimental, yet increased in frequency, it would be included as a "beneficial mutation" according to this standard. And they give the math to prove it
Determination of Fitness Parameter m. The Malthusian fitness parameter m can be determined from the frequency increase of the carrier of the advantageous mutation (12):
equation M3
{actual equasion does not copy & paste for some reason}
where mij is given per generation. Pi is the frequency of the selected lineage at the time point when a statistically significant increase in allele frequency was detected. Pj = 1 ? Pi. Time measured in generations is specified by t.
Now then, claiming all mutations which don't disappear are beneficial is just a silly way of sneaking in the assumptions which you claim evolutionists don't make. They have chosen the quirky definition route, but the assumptions have clearly been smuggled into the report. The very same assumptions you claim evolutionists don't make.
So, it might be reasonable to say that Deleterious mutations are mutations that lead to a lower fitness and hence per definition to less offspring of their bearer.
I regard that possibility to be remote indeed.
I guess that doesn't really support your contention that evolution theory claims that harmful mutations lead to death 100% of the time.
Guess again.
Applying this method, every hereditary disease in existence is a "beneficial mutation", except for the spontaneous ones occurring in the present generations of lifeforms, which have not (yet) spread. Those which have spread (increased frequency) are
by definiton classified as "beneficial", and one can even plug any one of them into the equation and see just how wonderful it is.
Is this part of your plan...to not get anything right? Well, it's your strawman. Run anywhere you like with him.
I suppose you have a different definition of 'right'. But whatever it is, I doubt I'll be basing too many plans upon it.
I found it noteworthy that all save one of their "mutations" were readily repeatable in their tests of artificial selection.
Selective Sweeps Are Reproducible. For an experimental test of our criterion to identify beneficial mutations, we repeated the spread of beneficial mutations. Replicas were inoculated with cells that had been frozen at least 90 generations before a statistically significant adaptive event could be identified. ...{snippage}
mutations don't repeat like clockwork.
* The issue of "greater numbers" is a joke. Note that this isn't even what they used in practice, but is substituted with the "increasing frequency / decreasing frequency" formula. So if in individual has a mutation, and that mutation is to
decrease in frequency... what number is
less than one?
