That is interesting about Dawkins seeing his position requires an almost infinite supply of magical mystery mutations that not only build new complex protein machinery but also produce new body plans.

That said I still believe my original claim is correct- most are neutral…

And I think I understand the “cost” argument- sickle-cell anemia is good in mosquito-ridden areas but it comes at a cost- pain and agony. IOW organisms become specialized to some specific selection pressure but are of little use in a “normal” environment.

Like going down a one-way dead-end street.

I remember reading a study that showed that bacteria that had evolved a resistence to a drug were weaker when placed in a neutral environment (drug free) than the unadaptive strain.

That is like Mr Seversky’s white bear traveling south again. It only proves that the advantages which are selected are very context dependent.

I’ll admit that my knowledge is second hand. But here is the justification for my comments.
1. Richard Dawkins said that “most mutations are deletrious, most mutations are bad.” I can’t find the video but it’s on one of these old posts.

2. I remember reading a study that showed that bacteria that had evolved a resistence to a drug were weaker when placed in a neutral environment (drug free) than the unadaptive strain. After a few hours the adaptive strain was totally replaced by the adaptive strain. I think that this example goes well with Mr. Fodor and Mr. Pimatelli-Palmarini’s book.

And I might add that almost all mutations observed have been harmful to the organism,

I wouldn’t add that.

Most appear to be neutral.

But I would say that beneficial is relative.

and every mutation observed has added a cost to the organism.

I wouldn’t add that either-

And I might add that almost all mutations observed have been harmful to the organism, and every mutation observed has added a cost to the organism.

To take the classic bear illustration, a mutation which causes a bear to grow a white coat

An albino? (polar bears do not have a white fur- their fur is clear and colorless- it scatters the light making it appear white)

But all that misses the point- the fur does not make the bear and the survival of the fittest does not explain the arrival of the fittest.

A mutation is a mutation is a mutation.

In the current evolutionary scenario all mutations are genetic accidents.

In a design sceanrio most mutations would be built-in responses- ie part of targeted searches.

O’Leary, you always put it so well! Would that Darwin critics like Fodor had the same chutzpah. But they’ve got prestige and career to worry about and no one ever said that courage was common in the academy.

Still—it’s heartening to see cracks in Darwin’s facade. Will Fodor et al add to the origins debate, or simply rehash some common critiques from another perhaps foggier perspective—I don’t know but I’m curious. There is always room for us to learn.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....094021.htm

“When the scientists blocked Ets1/2 activity (either by inhibiting the Ets1/2 gene, itself, or its upstream modulators), Ciona heart specification was likewise blocked. Alternatively, the over-expression of Ets1/2 in caudal cells caused the cells to switch their fate from tail to heart.”

“The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. “The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity”, says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.”

does blocking ETS 1/2 activity actually considered a mutation? thanks!

Thanks for the explanation. I guess I still don’t understand the difference between selection and genetic drift then. It seems like selection works both when you’ve got mutations that pop up in a population where that trait never existed and when the trait (white or brown fur) already does exist as a variation and gets selected for. It seemed to me that at 14 you were saying selection is one thing and genetic drift is another. Maybe I misread. I guess you could say that random genetic drift doesn’t necessarily have selection working on it. It probably does, but genetic drift may be just slow change due to random factors without any type of culling mechanism. Do I understand you correctly now?