Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?

Designed into the creaures when? How many creatures? What was the initial population size and how long ago was this?What possible criteria distinguish the character of the genetic differences seen in beneicial alleles from the many experimentaly observed or genetically documented forms of genetic mutation? What barrier prevents the same mutations happening to produce exactly the beneficial alleles you are ascribing to prior design?It isn't just an understandable assumption because it is what the ToE dictates but because it is consistent with all the known mechanisms of genetics and with the many observed forms of genetic mutation. All the novel traits we have seen develop de novo are the products of mutation so what reason, other than a prior bias, would there be for assuming that other traits are not?TTFN,WK

no I don't, there is no reason why mutation can't give rise to both deleterious and beneficial mutations. I'm not sure what you mean by 'funtionless' mutations, do you mean silent mutations, neutral mutations or mutations which render a gene non-functional? No it isn't just a theory and there is no call for selection to weed out all of what you consider deleterious mutations, or even all deleterious mutations. It is not mere theory that embryonic lethal mutations or mutations which cause sterility will not be passed on. Less significantly deleterious mutations need not be selected out of the population, although they may tend to be.TTFN,WK

I'm not sure that I really accept that the wisdom tooth mutation, if there is one specific mutation that we are discussing, is beneficial in anything other than a colloquial sense.Certainly not getting impacted wisdom teeth would make life nicer for people but I doubt the number of cases where they would lead to someone dying before having a chance to reproduce are all that significant, or at least they wouldn't have been before people started living longer and procreating later.Wisdom teeth seem rather to be an example of a trait which is becoming vestigial due to no longer being beneficial, there are a number of mutations associated with hypodontia (tooth loss) perhaps the selective constraints on such mutations are simply much lower in modern populations. Other than a miniscule saving in bodily resources I'm not sure how much of a reproductive benefit this would confer. I can only find one reference that seems particularly relevant which suggests there is a possibility that certain pax9 tooth agenesis related mutants may have a beneficial effect (Pereira et al, 2006).Any actual detailed population genetic research on the topic would probably be helpful in clearing up this question.TTFN,WK

It is the fact that you insist on using your definitions rather than those that are actually part of the science involved that cause a problem.How can you 'genuinely' object to ToE by ignoring what it actually says and making up your own definitions which it can never satisfy? All you are doing is building up a strawman version of the ToE.Without you giving a clear definition of what you consider benefificial which isn't merely your subjective opinion, 'oh that sounds beneficial', what possble criteria do we have for finding an example of a beneficial mutation?I'm not sure how Aegist can discuss whether mutations can be beneficial while what beneficial actually means is so vague. I don't mean to bust up your new found accord but at some point you are going to have to provide a workable definition of beneficial if we are to discount the one in current scientific usage.TTFN,WK

No it isn't. 'Beneficial' is a post hoc assessment of the impact of a particular trait or mutation. I don't dispute that there is a lot of usage of teleological language in evolutionary biology but I don't think that 'beneficial', which represents a concrete and quantitative measure of fitness, is one of them despite its colloquial usage.I don't see hwy any caveats about context for mutations are needed except for people who aren't actually familiar with evolutionary theory. Anyone with a moderate understanding should understand the contingent nature of beneficial mutations. I'm not sure why the whole language of evolutionary biology should be changed to accomodate people who can't be bothered actually finding out what the theory really says.WHat would you propose as an alternative term for a gene conferring an increase in reproductive success on its posessor, 'an enabling genetic change for environment X'?TTFN,WK

I was simply basing the term on what you yourself said. I'd agree that there is an element of the hopeful monster here in as much as you seem to posit that the mutations are pre-existent. But in the phrase I proposed there is no necessity for the mutation to be pre-existing. A mutation could easily allow more energy efficient habitation of a particular environment in which the population in which it arose already existed.TTFN,WK