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.
Oh? If that's your complaint about
the definition I provided so long ago, why did you not voice it? While you're at it, please define 'geneticist' and 'biologist'.
I was lucky, and chanced to find this.
When a cell divides, the entire sequence of its DNA must be duplicated into two faithful copies of the original; one copy goes to each of the "daughter" cells created by the division. Occasionally, errors occur in this copying mechanism, creating "mutations" in the DNA sequence.
Perhaps it will be helpful to any who have trouble understanding what a mutation is. It's in plain English, but whether that is good or bad seems to be something we cannot agree upon.
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.
Your game of pretending this hasn't been discussed before is an indicator you have nothing better. The longer you persist, the more certainty everyone can have that the conclusion is true.
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.
So you have a second complaint about my definition, and only now, when things are clearly going badly for your cause and you have no hope of turning it around, you bring them up?
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).
Nonsense. You confuse the new information discussions with the definition discussions; and you further side against your fellow evolutionists.
There is no way to force an evolutionist to admit what can or cannot be accounted for by studying possible combinations. If you maintain this is what the authorities of evolutionism mean when they use this definition, you're more than welcome to demonstrate it. Show me even ONE case where that definition is applied in that manner. I defy you.
Those who account for recombination and other mechanisms don't bother to use the false definition to begin with. They use the classic definition. The new definition only even exists for the purpose of double-talk.
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.
I ignore nothing of the sort. I account for both common definitions, and the new one coined for the purpose of introducing circularity.
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?
I think what you mean to ask is how I would quantify the benefit. Criteria's pretty simple:
does it provide a benefit?Obviously you don't think it is measured by the ability of the organism to continue his family line. So what is it?
That's twice you've used the term 'measure', so you seem to think benefits can be universally quantified. I would dispute this assertion.
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.
It's a definition that includes a circular assumption. Actually, they sort of tack on the assumption at the end, so it's pretty hard to miss it. There is no guarantee of survival built into the term 'beneficial mutation' from the start, so it rather had to be tacked on.
Perhaps you somehow missed the key concept that a mutation which "increases frequency" survives? And that this is true in 100% of all cases of "increasing frequency". And that "by definition" those that don't "increase frequency" aren't beneficial. I know all this is written in English, but we have little alternative.
Whether or not I have offered anything; whether or not anyone has ever offered anything; circular assumptions render their product scientifically worthless. And were it not circular, had they imported this essential assumption by some other means, the assumption would still be false per the first post in this thread and your own (part-time) agreement that the assumption is absurd.
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.
Your sentence, if it was intended to be accurate, appears to have suffered a deletion mutation. The word 'not' has been removed from its rightful place following the word 'would'.
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?
I see you have no argument. Again/still.
Maybe I should double-check. You decline to address the point made in my original post, but rather focus on the commonly-observed behaviour of evolutionists and definitions of common English terms.
You rejected the possibility that one can use classic, common definitions of the terms in the discussion, and when it became convenient enough for me to produce a definition, you ignored it.
You continue to deny that evolutionists practice the things we have all observed them practicing, even when presented with evidence of other posters on this forum doing them; professional evolutionists doing them; and you yourself doing them. Or you claim it "doesn't count" or whatever... I'll gladly leave it to those who witness to decide for themselves what "counts" vs. what I said.
You still fail to realize that none of this smokescreen has any bearing on whether or not the assessment contained in my original post is accurate. Or at least you must hope others will fail.
