Difference Between Beneficial and Innovative Mutations

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

The types are in the examples above.

Examples are not definitions.

[T_aquaticus]

@Rumraket

With Bill’s list of examples we couldn’t say that some novel organization of tissue or proteins is an innovation if it doesn’t result in a heart muscle, or an eye, because Bill has not explained what it is about hearts or eyes that make them innovations.

Even worse, these structures would have evolved over many steps, so which step is the innovation? For the eye, is the innovation a photosensitive protein capable of starting some sort of enzymatic or ion channel cascade? All of these changes in gross anatomy are going to take many mutations, so which one mutation is an innovation? I would suspect that @colewd would not consider any of these mutations innovative on their own.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@colewd

The types are in the examples above.

@colewd

Bill, there is no important distinction between “Beneficial” mutations and “Innovative” mutations.

All mutations are “innovative”… to that species, to that moment in its development.

You are looking for a single mutation that creates a Kind, or a Family, or a Genus… and that’s just loco. It doesn’t happen that way. And nobody ever said it could.

I gave you the example of a mouse vs. a bat. To become a bat only requires a little more skin and longer fingers. You started to ask about echo location… but we don’t need echo location to have a dramatically different creature.

A mouse that can’t fly at all… vs. one that can fly … even if only badly.

Are the changes that allow a bat to develop? Yes. Because mice don’t have wings of any kind.

Are the changes that allow a bat “beneficial”? That depends completely on the context … the niche of the mouse or bat. A winged mouse who lives in tunnels is not going to do well.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Even worse, these structures would have evolved over many steps, so which step is the innovation?

You need to define evolve here and then model and test how this claim has merit. Short of this you are begging the question.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

You need to define evolve here and then model and test how this claim has merit.

No I don’t. You need to define them and show that your claim has merit. You need to stop pawning off your own claims onto others.

Where is your model for innovative mutations?

[Argon]

Let me help clarify things, @T_aquaticus:

• “Beneficial mutations” – Mutations that confer a selective advantage to the organism.
• “Innovative mutations” – Mutations that cannot arise without specific divine intervention and/or ‘Intelligence’ (see also: ‘Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution’).

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Argon

• “Innovative mutations” – Mutations that cannot arise without specific divine intervention and/or ‘Intelligence’ (see also: ‘Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution’).

@Argon

Are these your definitions?

Whether they are or not, the definition for “Beneficial mutations” has a problem:

the phrase “to the organism” is probably an oversight?

“Mutations that confer a selective advantage to the organism”

For example, a mutation that creates a recessive gene can be harmful to individuals who have both copies of the recessive gene - - while being very helpful to the majority of the population that only has one copy of the recessive genes.

For example, Sickle-Cell Anemia provides important protection to the general population exposed to malaria for centuries. But it is still not very good for the minority of individuals who get both copies.

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

For example, a mutation that creates a recessive gene can be harmful to individuals who have both copies of the recessive gene - - while being very helpful to the majority of the population that only has one copy of the recessive genes.

For example, Sickle-Cell Anemia provides important protection to the general population exposed to malaria for centuries. But it is still not very good for the minority of individuals who get both copies.

Detrimental effects in homozygous individuals is factored into the overall benefice of an allele. It is always best to measure benefice at the level of the population, both in terms of cooperation between individuals and in terms of population genetics.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

Detrimental effects in homozygous individuals is factored into the overall benefice of an allele. It is always best to measure benefice at the level of the population, both in terms of cooperation between individuals and in terms of population genetics

Thank you, @T_aquaticus.

While getting busy with the example, I neglected to actually use the improved definition that would use the word “population” !

"Beneficial Mutations: Mutations that confer a selective advantage to a population."

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Argon

“Innovative mutations” – Mutations that cannot arise without specific divine intervention and/or ‘Intelligence’ (see also: ‘Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution’).

@Argon and/or @colewd:

Now what are we going to do with this definition for “innovative mutations” ?

It doesn’t sound quite right, you know?

Behe describes the kinds of changes necessary to make a flagellum … so we presume that such a mutation (or string of mutations) would fit the definition, and that God made those changes possible.

And yet, Behe also describes the degeneration of genetic function in the case of the polar bear… which leads us to think that God was not the one making the changes in the Polar Bear.

So… is the test? God sometimes is involved in Evolution and sometimes God is NOT involved?

There is an irony here! If a Creationist swears on a bible that God never uses Evolution … then that means God made the Polar Bear with degenerative genetic function (as well as the flagellum for other creatures).

@colewd, do you think God made the Polar Bear by special creation?

[Argon]

@gbrooks9

@Argon
Are these your definitions?

“That is the theory that I have and which is mine, and what it is too.” – Anne Elk

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Argon

“That is the theory that I have and which is mine, and what it is too.” – Anne Elk

Huh? This goes right over my head…

[Argon]

@gbrooks9

@Argon and/or @colewd:

Now what are we going to do with this definition for “innovative mutations” ?

We can print it out on paper and fold that paper into a hat! And then we can wear the hat.
And won’t that be jolly, us, sitting around with a definition of innovative mutations displayed prominently on our paper hats!

[Argon]

@gbrooks9

Huh? This goes right over my head…

@gbrooks9, do you think I recently experienced cerebral damage and suddenly became a mouthpiece for the DI?

I mean yes, it’s possible that I’ve suffered cerebral damage but the odds of turning into a DI spokesperson as a result? Improbable.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Argon

@gbrooks9, do you think I recently experienced cerebral damage and suddenly became a mouthpiece for the DI?

I like humor… but usually I like to be sure it IS humor before I start to work with the next response… I don’t know anything about you @Argon.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@davecarlson

Generally, most recombination events tend to occur in “hotspots” that are determined via a combination of the local chromatin structure and especially by the presence of specific DNA motifs that enable binding of the PRDM9 protein (at least in mammals…the specific mechanisms differ across many other groups).

Most mammals. Dogs have lost PRDM9, if I recall correctly.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Argon

“Innovative mutations” – Mutations that cannot arise without specific divine intervention and/or ‘Intelligence’ (see also: ‘Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution’).

We could demarcate innovative features are ones where we observe new or novel differentiated cell(s).

[davecarlson]

@glipsnort

Most mammals. Dogs have lost PRDM9, if I recall correctly.

Yep, you seem to be right about that.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@colewd

We could demarcate innovative features are ones where we observe new or novel differentiated cell(s).

So @colewd, in the case of bats, are longer fingers “novel” cells? I don’t think so.
Is more ample skin folds “novel” cells? I don’t think so.

The term “innovative mutation” is particularly lame.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

We could demarcate innovative features are ones where we observe new or novel differentiated cell(s).

That only shifts the definition to what is new or novel. That doesn’t help.