Role of Mutations

The sort of scenario you describe, where a neutral or even detrimental mutation is rendered beneficial by a change in the environment or population, is termed preadaptation.Preadaptation is not impossible perhaps but it would require a number of unlikely coincidences to come about. Indeed widespread evidence for preadaptation might suggest some form of ID was in operation.Your description is slightly hazy so I'm not sure if the fact that the mutation becomes beneficial is supposed to be related to its frequency in the population or not, although for language this seems like a reasonable scenario. I'm not sure you need such complicated reasoning to do this, simply the fact that mutations which may be neutral or detrimental in one environment may be beneficial in another should be sufficient, you needn't argue that mutations arising in an environment in whihc they are neutral or detrimental may subsequently become beneficial.TTFN,WK

Well obviously natural selection only acts on existing mutations, but it certainly need not act only on mutations whose existence precedes that of the selective pressures which render them beneficial. I was not thinking of preadaptation in terms of a large pool of genetic variation but rather as a sort of micro hopeful monster scenario with some sort of neutral trait, not something like a SNP, was present and maintained in the population until it became beneficial.I'm also not sure if Jaderis is really focusing on the maintenance of a trait within the population or not, when he says... This rather suggests a scenario where particular mutations are reocurring de novo which is a different scenario again.TTFN,WK

The mistaken assumption here is that ther is only one possible good 'something' that will do. In order to produce a measure of probability that is anything more than just make believe you need to have a very clear and releiable set of basic assumptions in place.If your assumptions are out then the figures that are produced are next to worthless.The key flawed assumption you show here is the supposition that only a specific mutation will do to produce some 'good' effect and that only a second specific mutation will be able to build on that.As Ramoss so cogently asks, where are your calculations coming from.Your AIG links also make the most common of mistakn creationist assumptions which is that to calculate the chances of something evolving you should calculate the chances of it being formed spontaneously from a jumbled assortment of amino acids, nucleotides, molecules or atoms.Such an assumption also renders the calculation worthless except perhaps if one were discussing some very specific areas of abiogenesis where the assumption of a combination of free chemicals might conceivably be relevant.TTFN,WK

Instead of these verbose outpourings why not just define gitt information for us in a manner in which it can then be calculated and actually used.If Gitt information is not suitable for this, as you seem to be suggesting, then it is entirely unsuitable for any sort of scientific analysis of genetics.One of Gitt's central assumptions, or 'theorems', that information must come from an intelligent source is itself highly suspect, unless every bit of information we derive about our world by direct examination is suddenly to redefined, as mere data perhaps.Perhaps a new thread to discuss Gitt information would be a more suitable venue.*ABE* I have opened a new thread The value of Gitt information to discuss this issue, your input would be very welcome and it would save us from derailing this thread with a detailed discussion of information.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.