I see what the problem is, its your phobia to comparisons. The important point is that advantageous traits are wiped out less frequently than non-advantageous traits, not neccessarily in every specific situation but less in general. If we accept that most mutations are wiped out regardless of their beneficial status then it still makes no difference to the fact that some survive and of those beneficial traits tend to come to predominate. They are generally preserved more than non-advantageous mutations.
I think deleterious mutations in germcells killing them before they get to form a zygote should be included yes, because advantageous mutations which apply to germcells getting to the zygote are also included.
Why should this be the case, the thing which makes a certain sperm for instance be successful in reaching the egg need not be something which is carried in the genetic material within the sperm and certainly not as a novel mutation. But this is beside the point. I think you are getting confused between two concepts, one of counting all mutations lost due to never forming a zygote and another of beneficial mutations being lost due to the presence of embryonic lethal defects in the embryo.
If you are counting every mutation present in every germ cell regardless of its contributing to an actual organism or not then I doubt anyone could argue that, given that assumption, most mutations are lost before they get a chance to propagate. These are never mutations which constitute part of the population however and certainly not part of the breeding population.
What it comes down to is a strawman argument, by putting forward a misrepresentative meaning for the phrase 'advantageous mutations tend to be preserved', i.e. that any such mutation ocurring in a DNA sequence in any cell will tend to be preserved or at least in any cell which might contribute to the next generation, you hope to make it appear as if there is a problem with the way it is presented in the context of natural selection, which is not the context you are putting forward.
By far the vast majority of the mutations wiped out in such a way never get a chance to be expressed as a phenotype and can hardly therefore be expected to be a suitable substrate for natural selection.
quote:The difference between preservation of deleterious / neutral and advantageous is not signficant when most all advantageous mutations get wiped out also.
It is, when you notice that WHEN a mutation manages to be passed down, it will be preserved if it is beneficial. And coupled with that other FACT of mutations that you ignored, that the same mutations tend to happen over and over again, as the structure of the DNA and proteins have more and less stable regions, a beneficial mutation swill, sooner or later, be preserved.
And no, if all mutations kept being preserved, then each individual would be a unique species, or just about, so that argument of yours simply doesn't work in what we observe in the world today.
Again, it is a simple matter of organization of knowledge. First is noted that mutations tend not to get preserved, secondary is that advantageous mutations are wiped out less then neutral/deleterious mutations. That is the correct order, and any other order is wrong. I'm just pointing out once again, that the focus of natural selection is odd, you jump to the advantageous vs deleterious difference without looking to mutations in general, how they relate to the environment. It is wrong by rules in organizing knowledge.
Actually to include the mutations that don't form a zygote even, would make the difference between preservation advantageous and deleterious more pronounced, so to include it would support your argument rather then mine. But is seems fair to include all phenotypically expressed mutatations, and I guess making them die before forming a zygote is a phenotypical expression.
Not going on to form a zygote is clearly not a phenotypic expression for any de novo mutation in the germ cells. Similarly much of the loss once an embryo is formed is entirely independent of the genotype of the embryo itself, except in the case of things such as embryonic lethal mutations obviously.
So if we only want phenotypically expressed mutations then we are reduced to those that form zygotes at least, which dramatically reduces the number of mutations, of any type, which are lost.
If you really want to say anything usefull about the extent to which mutations are preserved/lost you are going to have to come up with some evidence/numbers at some point. In a human population every individual is thought to have at least a handful of nonsynonymous mutations distinguishing their genes from those of their parents. Assuming that the levels are the same in the lost embryos, quite a large assumption in fact as embryos with more mutations are more likely to have an embryonid lethal mutation. What you really need to show is the levels at which embryos/ organisms are lost before reproducing compared to the numbers of organisms which succeed in reproducing, ideally with fertile offspring. Then you can begin to say something meaningful about the loss of mutations from the population.
It is wrong by rules in organizing knowledge.
Rubbish, these so called rules you continue to refer to are a device all of your own as far as I can see, and you continue to ignore the fact that our modern understanding of population genetics and natural selection does acknowledge all these things at least in its fundamental assumptions, i.e. in the larger body of knowledge pertaining to population genetics in general.
In evolutionary terms it doesn't make a jot of difference how many mutations are lost because there will still be many surviving mutations to act as a substrate for selection. All that is needed for selection is one mutation which gives rise to a differential in fitness.
It's difficult to think of a comparitive example which clearly shows the oddity of the practice of Darwinists. The rule is that you go from the more general to the more specific, where Darwinists start out with the more specific, and now and then touch upon the more general, which is actually fundamental to the more specific theory. It is prejudicial, why now you are even excluding observations which apparently don't suit your theory very much!
I can only once again trot out differential gravitation theory as a comparitive example to show the oddity. This theory only applies to objects of differing mass. When the mass is different then the gravitational pull is different, that is a fact. So when an objects flies at an equal distance between two objects with differing mass, then the object will tend to fall towards the object with greater mass. Another fact, it's undeniable, etc. etc.
No, that isn't the rule. Once again you show that your understanding of science is based on your own preconceptions rather than any actual familiarity with science.
The usual approach is to actually look at a wide number of specific cases and then draw general assumptions from them. You can then use these general assumptions to make predictions about what you will see in other specific cases.
Of course 'Darwinian' evolution is specific, it is supposed to provide a specific mechanism for a specific observed phenomenon. If you want the general science you will find it is called biology.
Once again your gravitation example is patently ludicrous. the laws of motion were derived from a large number of specific studies and arguably an unusually large amount of brilliant insight. Have you not heard the apple atory? How much more specific can you get.
Your post almost totally ignores the content of my previous post to which it is a reply at least as far as the topic of beneficial mutations and preservation goes. As an explanation of your objections, on the grounds of 'Organisation of Knowledge,' it is almost equally lamentable, in as much as it explains nothing but just makes the same usual vague objections.
It is prejudicial, why now you are even excluding observations which apparently don't suit your theory very much!
Remember another thread where you argued that simply because variation obviously exists is no reason to include it in a theory? When did your epiphany occur which changed you to arguing that everything that exists must be integrated into a theory?