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.
Yet you haven't produced a single quote by any geneticist or biologist defining what a mutation is. It just perchance showed up in an article you referenced yet you didn't bother to point it out. Now you say there is no reason to assume that there is a single definition of mutation. Well, there is no reason to assume that invisible pixies don't live under your bed but I wouldn't believe that without some evidence. Ya got some evidence that there are different definitions for mutation in genetics? Your scorecard on coming up with evidence is pretty empty so far....maybe this time...Nah, probably not.
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.
What you claim was in use is not the same as what I said and if you wish to prove that they are, ante up and put them side by side to show how close they really are.
You personal definition was so ambiguous that there wasn't anything to ignore and despite requests for you to provide clarity, you chose to demean the requests as coming from someone who doesn't understand English. I understand that your pet theories revel in cloudy explanations but real science requires clarity.
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.
Oh, sorry! I didn't realize that you needed in depth explanation of "is not found in the parent organism(s)". It means that the change in the DNA cannot be accounted for by studying the possible combinations of DNA from the parent organism(s).
It addresses half of the issue. I never claimed it covered everything. Neither did I endorse its content.
You were probably hoping that everyone would just say "Look, it says that beneficial mutations are rare...CTD must be right!".
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".*
When you bother to provide an inkling of a definition for beneficial mutation then you get to criticize the definitions that others bring to the table.
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.
Your claim that the code changes are "by design" ignores the definition of mutation by geneticists, so it is balony. So, how would you "evaluate whether or not mutations were beneficial or not"? What criteria do you use to measure the amount of benefit or harmfulness a mutation might have? Obviously you don't think it is measured by the ability of the organism to continue his family line. So what is it?
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.
It's not an assumption, it is a definition. You don't like it? Too bad. I don't see you coming up with a better one.
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.
I really had no false hopes that you would actually get a clue.
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.
Yep...in over your head. Maybe a little basic biology would help here. Something in the freshman college range?
