Hi Yrreg,
Mutation and millions of years determine good, bad, or neutral mutation.
No. Mutation is just mutation.
Natural Selection determines whether it is good or bad. This happens on a very much shorter scale than "millions of years".
Mutation can be good, bad, or neutral.
Yes.
We will know that after millions of years and we are still around and the mutation proves to be good.
No. A "good" mutation (a more accurate term might be "beneficial") is one that helps the individual organisms that carry it to survive and successfully reproduce. Note that I'm talking about the day-to-day, year-on-year process of survival and reproduction here; ordinary organisms surviving, finding mates and making babies. If the mutation helps its carrier survive long enough to produce viable offspring, then the mutation is considered to be beneficial.
As an example, imagine a bird that carries a mutation that gives it sharper eyesight. That bird would be better able to find food, to avoid predators, to find a mate or find a good nesting site. These advantages, though slight, would add up to an increase in the bird's chances of surviving and successfully reproducing. Thus the gene is more likely to get passed on and is considered beneficial.
Millions of years are not required, unless you want to talk about many generations.
Bad is when the mutation did not enable the changed species to survive millions of years.
No. Bad (a better term might be "harmful") mutations are those that hinder an organism's efforts to survive and to reproduce. If a mutation makes it harder for the organism carrying the mutation to survive long enough to successfully reproduce, that mutation is considered harmful. Remember, we're talking about a mutation that would have originated in a single individual here. If it makes that individual (or any offspring that carry the same gene) less likely to survive and successfully reproduce, it is harmful.
As an example, imagine a bird that carries a mutation that gives it blurry eyesight. That bird would be less able to find food, less able to avoid predators, less able to find a mate or find a good nesting site. These disadvantages, though slight, would add up to a decrease in the bird's chances of surviving and successfully reproducing. Thus the gene is less likely to get passed on and is considered harmful.
Again, millions of years need not come into it, unless you want to talk about many generations.
And neutral if the mutated feature is still around but we can't figure out why it is still around, how it serves in enabling the mutated species to survive to the present.
No. A neutral mutation is one that neither helps nor hinders the organism.
If we weren't able to figure out what a given mutation does, then we would not be able to say for certain whether it was beneficial, harmful or neutral. Most mutations however, are neutral.
If a mutation actually did serve in "enabling the mutated species to survive to the present", it would be beneficial, not neutral.
That is really scientific thinking in terms of what, like for example the theory of relativity?
Mmm. If I were you Yrreg, I'd stick to one theory at a time.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
™ Version 4.2
