What are "Mutations"?

[Ashwin_s]

@jongarvey

Ashwin - it looks as though the debate is over. Dust becoming Adam was a mutation completely compatible with standard evolutionary theory, after which neutral drift and natural selection did the rest. It works for princes turning into frogs, too.

It’s a definition with a very wide scope indeed.

[Argon]

@swamidass

Because all the mutations he notes are not entirely predictable. They have an ordered component, and a random component.

Stochastic processes.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Ashwin_s

Is expanding the definition of mutation the answer to all these new mechanisms of change?

I agree with @swamidass – that mutation was always used broadly. That’s one of my criticisms of evolutionary biology. I really think they should narrow it, or have several different classes of mutation. To some extent they do, but “mutation” is still used in a very broad sense.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@nwrickert

Yes, they do. But I see that as a mistake. That mutations are random does not imply that life is random

Do YECs believe more in random mutations than i do ? It deems YECs dont believe God is comtrol of all the genomes of the animals released from the ark!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@nwrickert

I agree with @swamidass – that mutation was always used broadly. That’s one of my criticisms of evolutionary biology. I really think they should narrow it, or have several different classes of mutation. To some extent they do, but “mutation” is still used in a very broad sense.

Think I answered this elsewhere. Got lost in the split…

@swamidass

We do have several classes of mutations and are discovering new ones all the time. Your objection is ungrounded.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Broken feature A helps with adaption to specific environment B. This explains adaption to an environment but does nothing to explain complex sequences required for new features like eyes.

Why doesn’t it?

[T_aquaticus]

@nwrickert

I agree with @swamidass – that mutation was always used broadly. That’s one of my criticisms of evolutionary biology. I really think they should narrow it, or have several different classes of mutation. To some extent they do, but “mutation” is still used in a very broad sense.

I define mutation as any change in DNA sequence. This would cover recombination, transposition, insertion, deletion, and substitution mutations. As we all know, the order and placement of sequence matters as much as the sequence itself, so any definition needs to cover these bases. This definition would also cover somatic and germline mutations. If we are talking about mutations that affect evolution then we would add the “heritable” modifier to the definition.

Of course, definitions were a bit different in the era before DNA was discovered. When looking at older literature (pre-1950) it may be a bit tougher to reconcile concepts.