Well, this is an answer totally from the ToE, purely a logical conclusion based on the assumption of evolution as the explanation for how everything got here. But there is no actual EVIDENCE that ANY of them were the result of mutation rather than designed in from the beginning.
This is actually just the science of population genetics. It was the work of the population geneticists that revealed the evidence and the mathematical basic for forming the modern synthesis between Darwinian evolution and genetics. Prior to that work there was no evidence that Darwinian evolution and genetics were even consistent and compatible, let alone mutually supportive.
I do not see what this has to do with the idea that it is MUTATIONS that are the great agent of beneficial change. Population genetics can be discussed without reference to mutations it seems to me, and was a few decades ago, mutation being treated as a much more occasional event than it appears to be now, when it is regarded just about as the entire fuel source of evolution. I suppose it was inevitable that it should develop in this direction though, to be more consistent with the ToE. In the "olden days" it seems to me it was taken for granted that the basic genetic stuff, the genome, was just "there" and there was no problem talking about how it was reorganized in various ways through the concepts of population genetics even then, change in the frequency of alleles in a population and all that being the formula for evolution in any case. Now it seems to be taken for granted that it all GOT there by mutation, though this is purely theoretical (I'll get to the few supposed exceptions).
There IS evidence, however, that defective genes are mutations because what they are replacing can be tracked.
I'm not sure what you mean when you conclude your paragraph with this. If this is an argument that mutations can only be harmful, then of course this isn't true, and this has been explained already, both generally by myself, and more specifically by Schraf with her wisdom tooth gene example.
And it has been answered. Many times.
Is it true or not that the observed errors in gene replication that are called mutations are associated either with a disease process or not associated with anything in particular, rather than with anything beneficial, except for these extremely few exceptions? You gave a completely hypothetical example of an increase in muscle strength due to an identifiable alteration in a gene -- I think that was it -- but this was totally hypothetical, not observed. I'd have to regard it as a beneficial mutation if such a thing ever occurred, but nothing that beneficial, at least in human genetics, has been demonstrated to occur at the genetic level.
All the beneficial factors appear to be pre-existing, built into the genome. At least, again, this is the creationist assumption and it is a perfectly reasonable assumption, there being nothing to show it wrong. This includes the greater visual acuity of the Patagonians you mentioned, for instance, which my version of creationism would explain as simply one genetic expression in the total human gene pool that got sorted out by migration of the people to Patagonia and spread through the population in subsequent generations. There is nothing to show that at any point a mutation for great visual acuity developed in a Patagonian that was selected because it was particularly beneficial in the Patagonian environment. That is all theory.
The wisdom tooth example cannot possibly be taken seriously as a beneficial mutation, or even a neutral mutation since it has a definite effect in eliminating wisdom teeth. It gets all philosophically confused to try to figure out how the absence of such teeth MIGHT conceivably confer a benefit. It seems to me that if it involves the destruction of a gene, that ought to be the defining factor, and I can't see such destruction as a positive in any sense whatever.
The fact that it happens to have no negative effect should simply be cause for gratitude or a sense of relief, but when more and more genes for the development of more and more teeth get broken, then its disease tendency might become more apparent. In other words, what can possibly be good about the loss of any physical capacity whatever? You can't judge this as a good thing only on present functional ability.
But then, being a creationist, I'm geared to seeing destruction and disease as the trend in life as a result of the Fall. While there is certainly room in this view for God's provision of all kinds of healing and compensating and rebuilding factors in the design of our genetic makeup, including the possible benefit of fewer teeth in a smaller jaw or whatever, it would be a mistake to regard any of this as a positive in the big picture.
The same with sickle cell. How anybody can possibly consider it a beneficial development that a mutation that kills people happens also to protect against a disease that kills people is beyond me.
And those two are the only human examples of a supposed beneficial mutation so far offered, as opposed to a very long list of known disease-causing mutations as well as the "neutral" kind that remove perfectly normal functions. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics shouldn't even be considered in this context, and that leaves TWO supposed beneficial mutations that aren't beneficial by any meaningful use of the term.
At the very least, I think this has to be regarded as a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for such phenomena than that given by the ToE.
A beneficial mutation, it seems to me, would have to produce a new protein for that gene with a completely new positive function that involves the destruction of nothing whatever. Sorry if my visualization of this process leaves something to be desired. I hope it's in the ballpark. It seems to me that if evolution had a prayer of being true, a LOT of this sort of thing would be seen, but in fact it appears that what is actually seen is all negative or "neutral" with the supposed exception of these very few examples that really aren't exceptions.
Or if it is an argument that only harmful mutations can spread through a population, then this is false, too. Parents pass their genes on to offspring, including mutations harmful or not.
Yes, but the point is that it hasn't been shown that there is any other kind of mutation than those that are harmful to one degree or another, including the ones that cause no appreciable disease process or functional loss as discussed above.
Quite logical according to the theory, never demonstrated in fact. Not a single actual case of this has anyone brought forward.
Schraf offered the example of her wisdom tooth gene and the HIV gene, and the general example of mutations in bacterial populations where mutations can be studied closely because bacteria provide many generations in a single day.
I've answered all this before and I answered it again above, and I guess I'll answer some of it again now too. Considering that there is an incredibly long list of known human genetic diseases, the claim that these few supposed exceptions amount to evidence of beneficial mutations is pretty paltry. I have no problem with the idea that there could be some beneficial mutations, but as a matter of fact all anybody has come up with is these sorry examples.
About the HIV protection gene, I answered it before and I'll answer it again. This is like the Patagonian visual acuity example. There is no evidence that it is a result of mutation, that is merely assumed. Unlike gene destruction or change that causes various diseases that can be pinpointed in the DNA, nobody has shown that kind of evidence for any such positive. There is no reason not to assume that it is simply part of the normal human genetic package that happened to survive in a few people, while in the rest of the population mutations destroyed it. This is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
As for bacteria, although in the context of human genetics I'd rather ignore it, somebody successfully argued somewhere at EvC that the development of resistance to antibiotics HAD to be a mutation and not built in because of the nature of asexual genetics, but I don't remember the argument. Seems to me that there is still no problem assuming that some bacteria are different from others in the same population, just by nature, and that such differences can be selected for. Whether this is true or not, I think the principle applies just fine to the plague/HIV protective gene and the visual acuity gene of the Patagonians.
You seem to be just declaring that beneficial mutations either don't exist or aren't really beneficial.
Not just declaring, arguing it from the information given me here.
I earlier explained how beneficial mutations are inevitable and provided one hypothetical example of a process by which they can happen.
A hypothetical example of a beneficial mutation against multiple known observed factual examples of destructive mutations is useless.
And people who don't die from infections caused by wisdom tooth infections produce more offspring than those who do,
Ha ha, considering that Schraf has said she wants no children. Anyway, that's a totally hypothetical possible benefit that borders on teleology, which is a no-no. Evos certainly have a lot of imagination. The vulnerability to wisdom tooth infections and impaction and all that is probably all the result of previous destructive mutations anyway. This is all a downward trend. And the actual evidence in hand supports this idea, whereas all you have is wild hypotheticals to support the evolutionist scheme.
and people who don't die of HIV a few years after exposure produce more offspring than those who do. These are clearly beneficial mutations with an effect on reproduction.
But there is no evidence that the HIV protection gene was a mutation at all, as opposed to a built-in design factor, the lack of it being the result of mutation.
Beneficial mutations that just keep people from getting sick or give them slightly greater endurance or strength or intelligence or attractiveness or charm are harder to notice and even when noticed don't rate the same level of scrutiny.
It's plausible, but just barely, and since the whole edifice is hypothetical, simply not convincing. All such positives are far more easily explained in terms of pre-existing built-in conditions, rather than mutation, which, again, has only been OBSERVED in its relation to destructive processes.
Maybe somebody will catch one in the act sometime.
Some have been caught in the act, and you've been provided a couple examples.
Very poor ones, which I totally demolished above.
™ Version 4.2