Evolution does not require mutation

[Glenn]

Let's put it to a vote.
Yes or no.

[John Harshman]

On 8/31/22 7:13 PM, Glenn wrote:
> Let's put it to a vote.
> Yes or no.
>

Just stop. You're only showing your ignorance.

[Glenn]

yes for true
no for false

I've been accused of showing my ignorance on talk.origins for years, and you've been a part of that for years. So why now the insistence that I "stop"?

[John Harshman]

For your own good. As I said, you're embarrassing yourself. I would
suppose you wouldn't enjoy that, if you only realized it.

[Glenn]

You sure do a lot of supposing. You have never seemed to have my interests at heart in over two decades. I wonder what changed. Or perhaps this is a veiled threat? Now that makes perfect sense.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 10:15:40 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> Let's put it to a vote.
> Yes or no.

I saw your quote mine. I immediately thought that it was an attempt to
spread disinformation. This was independent of thinking about who
mined the quote. That quote is of course "Evolution does not require mutation".

Looking at that extracted quote, my mind immediately goes to thinking
that "well, yes, natural selection can operate to produce differential reproductive
success amongst pre-existing genetic diversity." Given the definition of evolution
that is change in the frequency of alleles in a population's gene pool. that's
evolution. One can vary that definition in myriad ways that will maintain the
observation that evolution has occurred by segregation of the extant
differences in a population's gene pool in a manner that is effectively
independent of novel mutations.

So no, evolution does not require new mutation. Evolution will occur provided
that there exists a diversity with differential reproductive fitness.

Of course there exists a broader question about how that diversity of genetically
encoded inheritable traids come into being. As the facts reveal themselves, that
diversity does indeed arise via what we call mutation, or infidelities in the process
of replication. Much can be said, and has been said, about the nature of the infidelity
of replication that results in imperfect replication, otherwise also known as
mutation.

On the whole, the continued existence of novelty, in the sense of mutation, extends
the ability of the process of evolution to selectivily bias subsequent generations to
be composed of elements that have relatively advantageous capabilities respective to their peers.

If you don't get this, go back to school and focus on reading comprehension.

[Glenn]

School is not what you need. In what world would the statement "evolution does not require mutation" possibly be a quotemine. Your provocative equivocations seem to have neglected to support that contention. And your conspicuous lack of acknowledging the context that would provide the incontrovertible evidence against it being a quotemine is inescapable. And your insistence on a particularly contentious definition of evolution, especially since that particular definition is most suited to argue against the obvious fact that evolution requires mutations, is most telling.
But thanks for the vote. Another hole in one!

[RonO]

You can demonstrate that you aren't embarassing yourself by describing
what you mean by evolution and give a specific example. Go for it.

Ron Okimoto

[Ernest Major]

On 01/09/2022 04:14, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/31/22 7:13 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> Let's put it to a vote.
>> Yes or no.

Reality is not determined by voting.

>>
> Just stop. You're only showing your ignorance.
>

There are 4 broad causes of change in allele frequencies in populations
- differential reproductive success (causal), differential reproductive
success (stochastic), mutation, and introgression. So clearly, if you
adopt the reductionist definition of evolution as change in allele
frequencies in a population evolution could proceed without mutations
(if you could somehow stop them occurring).

If you want to account for the diversity and disparity of the biosphere,
then you do need mutation.

--
alias Ernest Major

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ahem…let me clear my throat…gene flow.

One need only look toward migrants into a population or prokaryotes freely
swapping USBs (plasmids and/or phages).

Also genetic recombination via crossovers in meiosis too in eukaryotes too
no??? Of course I suppose that is sometimes a case of mutation in the sense
of gene duplication or deletion. Duplication is a great source of novelty
in subsequently tweaking redundant elements, but I digress.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well drift is evolution as is gene flow. The latter as lateral gene
transfer is important to bacteria in the way they outwit human attempts to
use antibiotics.

[Ernest Major]

The classical categorisation of evolutionary processes is the quadrangle
of selection (differential reproductive success causally correlated with
genotype), drift (differential reproduction success not so correlated),
mutation (variation resulting from imperfect replication), and gene flow
(variation originating from other populations). None of these is a monolith.

I do wonder whether population formation (and extinction?) should be
added to the list, and how to treat recombination.

Gene flow covers a wide variety of processes, with noticeably different
significances. It runs from intrademic gene flow, to introgressive
hybridisation, to respeciation (gene flow from diploid progenitors to
polyploid descendants by repetition of the initial population forming
event) to plasmid or viral mediated LGT/HGT. I'm in two minds as to how
to categorise autopolyploid and allopolyploid population formation, and
IGT (inter-genomic transfer - perhaps that can be considered an emergent
process composed of a duplication mutation, various intermediate steps,
and completed by a deletion mutation).

With recombination, unequal crossing over is a form of mutation
(duplication, inversion or deletion), but regular recombination normally
doesn't create new alleles (intragenic recombination may - an
adaptationist explanation of introns appeals to this as facilitating the
combination of multiple advantageous mutations to a gene).

--
alias Ernest Major

[Kalkidas]

Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> Wrote in message:r

> Let's put it to a vote. Yes or no.

Define "evolution".
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[John Harshman]

Drift was what Ernest meant by "differential reproduction (stochastic)".
And "introgression" was probably meant to include any sort of lateral
transfer. The point is that without mutation, evolution would eventually
grind to a halt. "Eventually" being the key word.

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 19:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>Let's put it to a vote.
>Yes or no.

Even Ken Ham says that microevolution happened without mutations.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[jillery]

Both diversity and disparity can happen by having different
combinations of features within individuals, or by having different
populations with different combinations of features.

[DB Cates]

The action of an IDer could take over that function (introduction of
variation).:)
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Glenn]

That isn't a vote. Do you agree with the claim "evolution does not require mutation"?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Depends on the framing. Ultimately it is. Migration can bring alleles from
other populations into the population one is looking at. Those alleles may
have came from mutations happening in a different time and place. But per
that specific population the allelic frequencies change due initially to
the migration itself. Migration can offset drift effects. Or isolation too.


Interestingly invention of sex and recombination was a way to offset
mutational load…Muller’s ratchet.

[Glenn]

Evolution is not what could happen, but what does and has and will happen.
Without mutation life would never have climbed out of the dead warm little pond.

Does evolution require random mutations?

[Glenn]

Am I correct in interpreting "ultimately it is" as agreeing that evolution does not require mutation? Perhaps you'll surprise me. Maybe what you are trying to say is that John's definition of evolution is not complete and not sufficient to exclude necessary reasons for the diversity seen in life.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Sorry I should have said ultimately it *does* require mutation. I was
unclear.

> Perhaps you'll surprise me. Maybe what you are trying to say is that
> John's definition of evolution is not complete and not sufficient to
> exclude necessary reasons for the diversity seen in life.
>

Again depends upon the framing. Narrowly circumscribed as a population in a
certain time and place mutation can fall out so to speak and evolution as
changes in allelic frequencies over generation time still take place
without mutation— due to drift, gene flow, etc. In a much broader big
picture view of evolution *in toto*, mutation will be a provider of fodder.
Not sure how it can be done without.

Point mutations may be important say for sickle cell trait being beneficial
in a heterozygote. But the more impactful type of evolution from a novelty
and disparity standpoint would be whole genome duplications and gene
duplication and divergence that itself stems from unequal crossover in
meiosis. Recombination may both reduce mutational load and provide
redundancy via copying mutations for future tweaking by point mutations
that result in gene families etc. What Peter derisively calls exaptor of
the gaps.

[Glenn]

Well beat me with a stick. Thanks for the clarification.

> > Perhaps you'll surprise me. Maybe what you are trying to say is that
> > John's definition of evolution is not complete and not sufficient to
> > exclude necessary reasons for the diversity seen in life.
> >
> Again depends upon the framing. Narrowly circumscribed as a population in a
> certain time and place mutation can fall out so to speak and evolution as
> changes in allelic frequencies over generation time still take place
> without mutation— due to drift, gene flow, etc. In a much broader big
> picture view of evolution *in toto*, mutation will be a provider of fodder.
> Not sure how it can be done without.

In that case it does not depend upon the framing. John's definition explains microevolution, and since most would argue that macro is just lots of micro,
mutation is simply removed from being required. That's how it could be "done'.
On the burnt side of well done.

The real issue however, in case you didn't see it, is that John denies "random evolution"
as being required of "evolution".

[John Harshman]

Now we locate the ambiguity that results in some of your confusion. It's
in the meanings "evolution" and "require". Some evolution happens in the
absence of mutations, random or otherwise. But evolution uses up genetic
variation which, to continue indefinitely, must be replenished by
mutation. So evolution, in the sense of allele frequency change in
populations, does not require mutation in order to occur. It only
requires mutation in order to continue indefinitely.

And of course there's no reason the mutations would have to be random.
Any mutations would do. The real-world evidence is that they're random
—- meaning not biased toward benefit to the organism -- but that doesn't
have to be the case.

[erik simpson]

It might be worth amplifying in this context, "random" doesn't necessary follow any
mathematical definition of random. It's a cellular chemical mistake that could be
provoked by all sorts of things: chemicals, cosmic rays, other environmental disturbances, etc.

[jillery]

To be even more clear, your "ultimately" means the same thing as
Harshman's "eventually". And this is correct. However, Glenn's claim
didn't specify a timeframe. More to the point, even if all mutations
were to stop at once, evolution would proceed apace indefinitely,
depending on the degree of mixing among different populations.

>> Perhaps you'll surprise me. Maybe what you are trying to say is that
>> John's definition of evolution is not complete and not sufficient to
>> exclude necessary reasons for the diversity seen in life.
>>
>Again depends upon the framing. Narrowly circumscribed as a population in a
>certain time and place mutation can fall out so to speak and evolution as
>changes in allelic frequencies over generation time still take place
>without mutation— due to drift, gene flow, etc. In a much broader big
>picture view of evolution *in toto*, mutation will be a provider of fodder.
>Not sure how it can be done without.
>
>Point mutations may be important say for sickle cell trait being beneficial
>in a heterozygote. But the more impactful type of evolution from a novelty
>and disparity standpoint would be whole genome duplications and gene
>duplication and divergence that itself stems from unequal crossover in
>meiosis. Recombination may both reduce mutational load and provide
>redundancy via copying mutations for future tweaking by point mutations
>that result in gene families etc. What Peter derisively calls exaptor of
>the gaps.
>
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

It’s been a while since I was into molecular evolution, but isn’t some
biasing per nucleotide transitions versus transversions fatal to the whole
randomness idea alongside also the notion of genomic hotspots?

[Glenn]

Mmm, over time. Where does the genetic variation come from, John?

>
> And of course there's no reason the mutations would have to be random.
> Any mutations would do. The real-world evidence is that they're random
> —- meaning not biased toward benefit to the organism -- but that doesn't
> have to be the case.

You are claiming there is evidence that mutations are random, John. That has been the paradigm for many years. But where are the facts?

[Lawyer Daggett]

You are moving the goal posts. Specifically, you are redefining "evolution" to mean
the specific natural history that we have observed, here, on our Earth. If the question
is posed to be, does our natural history require mutation as part of the driver of
diversity that feed into the process of evolution? --- then the answer is a resounding
yes, mutation was a key element in the evolution that we have observed.

But that's not the question you posed. You simply asked about "evolution". Scientists
look at the process of evolution in an abstracted manner, just as engineers (and scientists)
look at heat engines in a Carnot cycle. The generic process of evolution, that which can
and has been described mathematically via population genetics, can operate on existing
diversity in a starting population in the absence of mutation. People are responding to you
in that context. It is the natural way for a scientist to respond.

You apparently were holding on to a private meaning of evolution, specifically you were
encumbering "evolution" to mean something that encompassed most of, if not all, of what
produced our observed natural history. That's just plain odd.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Which definition of random do you mean?

And whichever definition you land on (and there are many), spend a little bit of
time pondering what sort of evidence could possibly support that particular
definition of random. As an adjunct to this question, do consider the somewhat
allied questions about whether or not rolls of dice are "random", or deals of bridge
hands.

As it happens, we can establish that various chemical reactions produce results
that are consistent with theories that involve "random" diffusion with an overlay
of bias determined by mathematically simple equations descriptive of enthalpies
and entropies of chemical interaction. That claim requires some further decoding
but the upshot is that observations can be reconciled to foundational theories
across multiple independent experiments. Generally speaking, when we can use
theory to predict the behavior of a system in advance of actually studying that
specific system, we view this as affirmation of the theory underlying those predictions.

I advance that we have reasonable theory and observation that supports that
"errors" in DNA replication/repair involve processes that behave stochastically.
That, by the most reasonable notions of "random", answers your question.

[Glenn]

No, I didn't "simply ask" about evolution.

Scientists
> look at the process of evolution in an abstracted manner, just as engineers (and scientists)
> look at heat engines in a Carnot cycle. The generic process of evolution, that which can
> and has been described mathematically via population genetics, can operate on existing
> diversity in a starting population in the absence of mutation. People are responding to you
> in that context. It is the natural way for a scientist to respond.
>
> You apparently were holding on to a private meaning of evolution, specifically you were
> encumbering "evolution" to mean something that encompassed most of, if not all, of what
> produced our observed natural history. That's just plain odd.

Why would that be "odd"? And why do you consider other definitions of "evolution", one of which John recently identified, as being "private"?

I was apparently "holding onto" a quote from John. I have offered no personal definition, and you should be aware of it, since you appear to be knowledgeable about what I have said in the threads. John just recently though stated that there is more than one, presumably definition, of "evolution".
I have simply responding to the definition John prefers in order to support his claim. If you or he cared to identify a reputable authoritative source that claims that evolution does not require mutation, that would clarify what the word "evolution" really means in the world of science.
Perhaps you can find it here:

https://ncse.ngo/defining-evolution

Several familiar evolutionists took part in it's construction.

[John Harshman]

Mutation, ultimately. But new alleles can also arise from recombination
of existing alleles and from horizontal transfer from other populations.
None of that affects my point, which you either haven't read, haven't
understood, or chose to ignore.

>> And of course there's no reason the mutations would have to be random.
>> Any mutations would do. The real-world evidence is that they're random
>> —- meaning not biased toward benefit to the organism -- but that doesn't
>> have to be the case.
>
>
> You are claiming there is evidence that mutations are random, John. That has been the paradigm for many years. But where are the facts?

The distribution of observed mutations is consistent with that idea, and
of course the Lederberg and other replica plating experiments are good
evidence. This assumes that "random" means "not preferentially arising
when they will be advantageous". What does "random" mean to you?

[Glenn]

Why ask me? Ask John.

>
> And whichever definition you land on (and there are many), spend a little bit of
> time pondering what sort of evidence could possibly support that particular
> definition of random.

Ask yourself whar sort of evidence could possibly support the claim that mutations are random.

>As an adjunct to this question, do consider the somewhat
> allied questions about whether or not rolls of dice are "random", or deals of bridge
> hands.

I don't play bridge, nor suffer fools gladly.

>
> As it happens, we can establish that various chemical reactions produce results
> that are consistent with theories that involve "random" diffusion with an overlay
> of bias determined by mathematically simple equations descriptive of enthalpies
> and entropies of chemical interaction. That claim requires some further decoding
> but the upshot is that observations can be reconciled to foundational theories
> across multiple independent experiments. Generally speaking, when we can use
> theory to predict the behavior of a system in advance of actually studying that
> specific system, we view this as affirmation of the theory underlying those predictions.
>
> I advance that we have reasonable theory and observation that supports that
> "errors" in DNA replication/repair involve processes that behave stochastically.
> That, by the most reasonable notions of "random", answers your question.

No, it is just a lot of hot air. Their is a difference between claiming "we don't see it' and "is".
Again, where are the facts? Not the inferences, nor the empty explanations. How has it been tested?

Are you aware that there has been a lot of talk in the last couple decades concerning non-random mutations and selection? Do you think you know the final word on the subject, and that it will never change or can not change?

[Glenn]

You just can't help yourself, can you. And you accuse others of doing what you yourself do best. "New" alleles are not new when they come from "other populations", John. I have never heard of horizontal allele transfer, but when genetic material comes from other species using horizontal gene transfer, they are mutations.

> >> And of course there's no reason the mutations would have to be random.
> >> Any mutations would do. The real-world evidence is that they're random
> >> —- meaning not biased toward benefit to the organism -- but that doesn't
> >> have to be the case.
> >
> >
> > You are claiming there is evidence that mutations are random, John. That has been the paradigm for many years. But where are the facts?
> The distribution of observed mutations is consistent with that idea, and
> of course the Lederberg and other replica plating experiments are good
> evidence. This assumes that "random" means "not preferentially arising
> when they will be advantageous". What does "random" mean to you?

It is your concept, not mine. Again, where are the facts? I know you think your claims are facts, but then you should be aware of the fact that can make others question you.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

I and several other posters have identified multiple processes which
are documented to alter allele frequencies in populations across
generations and without invoking *any* genetic mutations. You argue
as if you disbelieve these processes are real, yet you don't identify
any specific objections to them. Why is that?

[Glenn]

Why should I? It is disingenuous to claim that I argue as if I disbelieve those processes are real. I haven't. I have said that those processes do not provide for an adequate explanation of "evolution", minus mutation. And I don't believe I am alone in this. It does seem as if everyone else here thinks there could be no controversy or criticism of the strict wording of the definition, as if it were a fact. But in any event, the wording does not include the claim that mutation is not required. As well, it appears to me and some others that it only describes "microevolution", and leaves out the explanation for why microevolution, or adaptation, can lead to macroevolution - speciation. That alone would seem to be sufficient reason to question that particular definition of "evolution".
I've already posted the url to this, from the "horses mouth":

"These examples illustrate that there is a wide range of approaches to defining evolution and that "experts" disagree over what to emphasize in their definitions. Some think that genes are a very good place to start, while others insist that important concepts about evolution are not captured in allele-frequency definitions. However, when it comes down to the nature of the evolutionary process, much of this is a matter of semantics — what to spell out and what to leave implicit. Despite the superficial differences in these descriptions, the apparent disagreements do not usually entail differences of opinion about what happened in the course of evolution, at least not in broad outline. "
...
"Even among scientists, the term "macroevolution" is a vague concept. Many authors think that there is a qualitative difference between adaptive evolution and the origins of higher taxa or forms."

https://ncse.ngo/defining-evolution

But don't let that stop you or John from dissing it as he did with another of my references, from Berkeley.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 19:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

>Why should I?


Since you asked, for the same reason Harshman identified the meaning
of evolution he uses here. You're welcome.

> It is disingenuous to claim that I argue as if I disbelieve those processes are real. I haven't.

Then ignore for argument's sake whether you argue that way. Do you,
Glenn Sheldon, in fact believe those processes are real? If not, then
why claim my claim is "disingenuous"? If so, then what is your
objection to the statement "Evolution does not require mutation"?

>I have said that those processes do not provide for an adequate explanation of "evolution", minus mutation.

The adequacy of the explanation does not inform whether evolution
proceeds without mutation.

>And I don't believe I am alone in this. It does seem as if everyone else here thinks there could be no controversy or criticism of the strict wording of the definition, as if it were a fact. But in any event, the wording does not include the claim that mutation is not required. As well, it appears to me and some others that it only describes "microevolution", and leaves out the explanation for why microevolution, or adaptation, can lead to macroevolution - speciation. That alone would seem to be sufficient reason to question that particular definition of "evolution".

Definitions identify current use. They almost never even try to
explain anything.

>>I've already posted the url to this, from the "horses mouth":
>
>"These examples illustrate that there is a wide range of approaches to defining evolution and that "experts" disagree over what to emphasize in their definitions. Some think that genes are a very good place to start, while others insist that important concepts about evolution are not captured in allele-frequency definitions. However, when it comes down to the nature of the evolutionary process, much of this is a matter of semantics — what to spell out and what to leave implicit. Despite the superficial differences in these descriptions, the apparent disagreements do not usually entail differences of opinion about what happened in the course of evolution, at least not in broad outline. "
>...
>"Even among scientists, the term "macroevolution" is a vague concept. Many authors think that there is a qualitative difference between adaptive evolution and the origins of higher taxa or forms."
>
>https://ncse.ngo/defining-evolution
>
>But don't let that stop you or John from dissing it as he did with another of my references, from Berkeley.

I don't speak for Harshman, and I don't diss authoritative sources.
However, I do challenge invalid citations. How evolution works is
different from what evolution means is different from the adequacy of
evolutionary theory. Your cited quote deals with definitions only. It
does not inform evolutionary theory or whether evolution requires
mutations. These are all separate issues.

[Glenn]

Then how about not lying?

>Do you,
> Glenn Sheldon, in fact believe those processes are real?

No, I wouldn't believe that people have ever migrated.

Maybe you could convince me by demonstrating it.

Get back to me afterwards if you wish me to waste more time with your mindless gibbergabber.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 21:26:01 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Then how about citing my alleged lie, and explaining why you think
it's a lie? Or retract your baseless, mindless, made-up crap?

>>Do you,
>> Glenn Sheldon, in fact believe those processes are real?
>
>No, I wouldn't believe that people have ever migrated.

Once again, you don't identify your reasons for your expressed
disbelief.

Once again, you address only one of the many cited processes.

Why is that?

>Maybe you could convince me by demonstrating it.

Maybe you could explain what kind of demonstration would convince you.

>Get back to me afterwards if you wish me to waste more time with your mindless gibbergabber.

That's the kind of transparent obfuscating evasion you and your
strange bedfellow are proud to spam in almost every post.

[Ernest Major]

To elaborate random does not mean unbiased (there are many biases to
mutations) - in this context it means that the fitness effect of a
potential mutation does not change the probability that it occurs.
Random doesn't mean acausal either.

There are, as you say, multiple mechanisms of mutation. I am willing to
entertain the hypothesis that the lack of bias related to fitness
applies with respect to a particular mechanism rather than to mutations
as a whole. For example, it seems likely that deletions are more likely
to have a negative effect on fitness that point mutations are. That
implies that more benefit is gained from DNA repair/proof-reading
mechanisms that suppress deletions than from DNA repair/proof-reading
mechanisms that suppress point mutations, and consequently, everything
else being equal, DNA repair and proof-reading will more efficiently
suppress deletions than point mutations, shifting the spectrum of
fitness impacts.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Glenn]

I got carried away by defining your claim as being a concept. You also called it an "idea", and claimed that some experiments are "good evidence". The problem is that many evolutionists, including yourself, regard your definition of random to be *fact*. And you know I could quickly and easily provide multiple sources in support of that fact. I've already posted the same definition in different words. You know I'm aware of what it means. You've gone so far as to claim that evolution does not require mutations. And you are aware of what "fact" means in science, and you are aware of how evolutionary theory could change were it untrue, despite your recent claim that even purposeful intervention, the opposite of random evolution, would not change evolutionary theory.

[John Harshman]

My, that was a lot of murky reference. I don't see much room for
specific response except for the last little bit. I have never claimed
that purposeful interventionwould not change evolutionary theory. That's
a gross misunderstanding of whatever you are talking about.

[Glenn]

While we are pondering our navels, what of mutations which have occurred in populations that do not serve an advantageous function until the environment changes. I'm reminded of the end of a certain definition of evolution, "over time". Is science all about "how you look at it"?

Imagine a "population" of several people living in the desert. They have for many years had all the water they needed easily available, so they didn't carry any around in case water got scarce. All except for one or two, which happen to carry water with them wherever they went.
One day they went on a long hike, expecting water to be available at their destination, and when they arrived, they realized there was no water, and that they would die of thirst before returning to where they came from. All except for the ones that carried water.
They survived, and the others didn't. You could say they were more "fit".
Now you can say that those that carried water all the time knew that they might some day need water. Or you could say that it was entirely accidental, that they didn't carry water all the time because they anticipated that they might die if they didn't.

[Glenn]

Interesting that you claim you don't see a reason for responding to the claim that you consider random mutation to be a *fact*.
And you know exactly what I am talking about.

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 15:34:07 +0100, Ernest Major

It's an axiom of entropy there are more ways to do something wrong
than right. Based on that, *any* change to a functioning system is
more likely to make that system function worse than better.

To adapt to change is also change, and so is also more likely to make
a system function worse than better. But to *not* adapt to change
will almost certainly make a system function worse and guaranteed to
make it fail altogether.

To allow positive change while tolerating and/or removing negative
change is the fundamental challenge of any functioning system in a
dynamic environment. Since different environments are differently
dynamic, the optimal balance between correcting change and encouraging
change depends on environmental dynamics.

In biology, mutations are heritable changes. Unsurprisingly, there
are biological systems which correct mutations, and biological systems
which encourage mutations, and biological systems which preserve
positive mutations, and biological systems which mitigate and/or
remove negative mutations. DNA is chemically more stable than RNA.
double-stranded DNA is error-correcting. Meiosis is error-correcting
and mixes DNA functions. Eukaryotic DNA transcription supports
multiple functions from the same DNA sequence. Methylation protects
inactive DNA sequences. And so on, all organized via biological
evolution working billions of years on Earth.

[Glenn]

I should have added this snippet:

Me: "You do a lot of supposing. But thanks for the clear answer. It stands to reason that you will also stand by the claim that "evolution does not require random mutations" as well."

You: "Yes, that's true. Evolution doesn't require mutations at all. What
evolution requires is genetic variation in a population. The ultimate
source of that variation could be anything, though on earth it's clearly
mutation. But that isn't required, and that the mutation is random isn't
required either."

You will claim that we were not talking about evolutionary theory. And indeed you have tried to disguise that by arguing a certain interpretation of a certain definition of evolution.

But from my perspective, in the above quote, you claim that random mutation is not required in evolutionary theory. That is the equivalent to saying that the lack of "random" mutation would not change evolutionary theory.

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 09:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Is there a question embedded somewhere in your analogy you
conveniently forgot to mark?

[Glenn]

Conveniently?

[John Harshman]

Your perspective is bizarre to the extent that I'm unable to understand
it. No, it isn't equivalent at all, and I can't see how you or anyone
would think so. I suspect you mean something different by many of the
things you say than an educated reader would think you mean, but I can't
tell for sure what you do mean.

[Glenn]

That's hard to parse. Sounds like babbling.

Just provide a reference that verifies your claim that evolution does not require mutation.
That should be easy for you.

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 22:08:13 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904122/>
**********************************************
It is well known that the main driving forces of evolution in any
population are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene
flow. The ability of these driving forces to perform their role is
dependent on the amount of genetic diversity within and among
populations. Genetic diversity among populations rises from mutations
in genetic material, reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction,
and migration of individuals among populations (gene flow) [22]. The
effect of the evolutionary driving forces on genetic diversity and
evolution depends on the amount of genetic variations that already
exist in a population. The amount of genetic variation within a given
population remains constant in the absence of selection, mutation,
migration, and genetic drift
***********************************************

So mutation is just one of several processes that modifies allele
frequencies across generations over time.

[Glenn]

Did you just want to demonstrate that you can copy and paste?

[John Harshman]

There's no need for a reference if you will just think a little bit. If
evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in populations, as
in references you yourself have found, then it should be obvious that
allele frequencies can change in many ways, all mentioned previously,
and only one of which is by mutation. Therefore, necessarily, evolution
can happen without mutation.

Would you require a reference if I claimed that 2 + 2 = 4?

[John Harshman]

Fascinating. You ask for a reference, and then you complain when jillery
provides a reference.

[Glenn]

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 11:25:42 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

Did it escape your notice that "allele frequencies" does not appear in the quoted text?
Did it escape your notice that "evolution does not require mutation" is not in the quoted text?
Did it escape your notice that the quoted text did not say "selection, or mutation, or migration, or genetic drift"?

[Glenn]

If *you* claimed that? Yes. I'd also question you if you claimed that one of the numbers were not required.

[Glenn]

So jillery could have provided a reference to a cartoon character, and you'd claim that supports your claim that evolution does not require mutation.
John, when *you* say things like "if this" and "obvious", "so", "therefore" instead of the reference, it doesn't appear that you are providing a reference that verifies your claim that evolution does not require mutation.

But what strikes me the most is that your logic would have neither of the four processes necessary for evolution, but perhaps you'd argue that at least one is required, and call it evolution. I'd call that macaroni.

[John Harshman]

If you read for comprehension instead of performing a word search, much
becomes clearer.

[John Harshman]

So no. That was a reference from PubMed, which comes from a scientific
paper. Where do you get a cartoon character from? You're really reaching
here.

> John, when *you* say things like "if this" and "obvious", "so", "therefore" instead of the reference, it doesn't appear that you are providing a reference that verifies your claim that evolution does not require mutation.

True. I point out that a reference shouldn't be necessary, and when
jillery nonetheless provides what you ask for, you reject that too. You
might as well drop the pretense that you're carrying on a discussion.

> But what strikes me the most is that your logic would have neither of the four processes necessary for evolution, but perhaps you'd argue that at least one is required, and call it evolution. I'd call that macaroni.
>

That's true. No one of the four processes is necessary, but any one of
them is sufficient. Each of them is capable, by itself, of causing
allele frequency change. How is that difficult to understand?

[John Harshman]

Doesn't that strike you as a bizarre feature of your character, if you
just think about what you said there?

> I'd also question you if you claimed that one of the numbers were not required.

As well you might. That would be silly.

[Glenn]

Nope. And I did think. You didn't. While trivially true, it does not identify reality. You might be claiming 2 apples and 2 oranges make 4 pears. And that is even comparable to your definitional argument.

> > I'd also question you if you claimed that one of the numbers were not required.
> As well you might. That would be silly.

But not silly to say that evolution does not require mutation, eh.

[Glenn]

It is easy to understand. But hard to swallow. According to your definition, a man marrying a woman from across the street and having a child is evolution. The amount of change is not specified in 'change over time". And that is just one of your problems. the biggest one is in using such a definition to reference "evolution" in most any context.

[John Harshman]

It is evolution, just a very tiny little bit, probably not enough to
notice. But that does follow from the standard definition. If you don't
like the standard definition, what would you suggest as a better definition?

[Glenn]

Seems you've forgotten that you haven't offered a reference that *states* what you call "the obvious", that *evolution does not require mutation*.

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 07:36:46 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

>Did it escape your notice that "allele frequencies" does not appear in the quoted text?
>Did it escape your notice that "evolution does not require mutation" is not in the quoted text?
>Did it escape your notice that the quoted text did not say "selection, or mutation, or migration, or genetic drift"?

It escaped your notice that your questions are non-sequitur, as they
incorrectly presume the quoted text is the only relevant part of the
cited article. But since you asked, no, no, and worg, as the quoted
text explicitly mentions selection, mutation, migration, and genetic
drift, and it explicitly says variation ala allele frequency is
constant *absent* these processes, which necessarily means evolution
happens when any are active. You're welcome.

[Glenn]

Here is an example:

"Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution."

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346/

Here's another, for you to interpret as 'obvious'

"Mutation is the engine of evolution in that it generates the genetic variation on which the evolutionary process depends."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4563715/

Want more? There are plenty. I'm sure you'll claim these are 'badly done" or some such malarkey as you did with the Berkeley ref. Or you'll question the authority. You have several tactics under your sleeve. You've been doing it for years. Remember your "I don't care what 50 Nobel winners said"?

[John Harshman]

If you read jillery's quote above for comprehension, you will see that
it says just that, though the exact words you are looking for do not
occur. It should also be obvious from the fact that there are multiple
reasons for allele frequency change, not all of which have to operate at
the same time.

[Glenn]

I wonder where you think the alleles come from in the first place, if evolution does not require mutation.

jillery, I doubt you even know what you believe. You're just here to be contrary.
What does "It says just that but are not the exact words" indicate.

[Glenn]

If I read that correctly, you are not agreeing with me, you are disagreeing with John.
"These processes" necessarily include mutation, and you claim that necessarily means evolution. That means evolution requires mutation.

[John Harshman]

Neither of those mean what you seem to think. They don't contradict what
I said. Note that your quotes say that mutations are the raw material of
evolution, not that they are evolution itself, which according to those
little quotes comes afterward, "differential reproduction" in the first
case and "the evolutionary process" in the second.

Now, is it possible for evolution to occur during a period in which no
mutations occur in the population? Suppose we start with 2 alleles at
50% each, and one of them becomes extinct while the other is fixed. Was
that evolution? Suppose we have 10 loci, each with 2 alleles, each
influencing body size by 10%. Suppose the allele frequencies change to
that the population mean size increases, even beyond the initial
population variation. Was that evolution?

[John Harshman]

Mostly, they come from mutation, though some come from recombination,
and others come from outside the population. But suppose Jesus creates a
population of fruit flies de novo, complete with allelic variation, and
further declares that no mutations will occur. Can that population
undergo any evolution?

> jillery, I doubt you even know what you believe. You're just here to be contrary.
> What does "It says just that but are not the exact words" indicate.

I suspect jillery understands what paraphrasing is, even if you don't.

[Glenn]

"Don't believe you lying eyes", in other words.

>
> Now, is it possible for evolution to occur during a period in which no
> mutations occur in the population? Suppose we start with 2 alleles at
> 50% each, and one of them becomes extinct while the other is fixed. Was
> that evolution? Suppose we have 10 loci, each with 2 alleles, each
> influencing body size by 10%. Suppose the allele frequencies change to
> that the population mean size increases, even beyond the initial
> population variation. Was that evolution?

If you count death as an evolutionary process, I suppose so. But you'll have to add that to the four you claimed are involved in "evolution".

[Glenn]

This post doesn't even deserve a response, though you did add an interesting twist to you argument, that your definition of evolution "in a population" can involve individual "others' from outside that population. Gotta love it.

[John Harshman]

In your case, it appears to be mostly an inability, or perhaps its
merely a desire, to read for comprehension. Word search is the best you
can or will manage.

>> Now, is it possible for evolution to occur during a period in which no
>> mutations occur in the population? Suppose we start with 2 alleles at
>> 50% each, and one of them becomes extinct while the other is fixed. Was
>> that evolution? Suppose we have 10 loci, each with 2 alleles, each
>> influencing body size by 10%. Suppose the allele frequencies change to
>> that the population mean size increases, even beyond the initial
>> population variation. Was that evolution?
>
> If you count death as an evolutionary process, I suppose so. But you'll have to add that to the four you claimed are involved in "evolution".

Death is included in selection and drift. Allele frequencies change by
both birth and death. How can you fail to understand anything so simple?
I notice you consistently ignore all requests for your preferred
definition of evolution.

[Glenn]

Does this mean what you seem to think I think it means?

"Mutation is fundamental to evolution, because it generates the genetic variation on which selection can act."

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007324

Now define evolution for them. Or let the authors know that 'fundamental to" does not mean "required'.

[John Harshman]

Is it that you don't know what "migration" means or that you forgot it's
been mentioned frequently?

[John Harshman]

I'm sorry. I can't help you. Your determination to understand nothing
defeats all my attempts to explain. Did you even read before snipping?

[Glenn]

That is way too "simple". You're as much as claiming that a death in the family is *evolution*. Curiously, you will agree.

I suppose an argument could be made that mutation is involved in death. Maybe not a reasonable argument, but that wouldn't seem to matter in this thread, with you trying to support your claim that evolution does not require mutation, using a certain peculiar definition of evolution.

> I notice you consistently ignore all requests for your preferred
> definition of evolution.

I don't have a preferred definition of evolution, John. And I don't recall any of these supposed many requests that I consistently ignore.

[Glenn]

yea, that's it, John. Now produce obvious support for your claim that evolution does not require mutation.

[Glenn]

It is so admiral to want to 'help" me. Perhaps you could restore what you claim I snipped.
And also it might help me to hear why you prefer a peculiar interpretation of one definition of "evolution", and can explain why the above quote means: 'Mutation is fundamental to evolution" does not mean "mutation is fundamental to evolution", or 'evolution requires mutation'.

[John Harshman]

Been there, done that. You snipped it.

[John Harshman]

Does a death in the family change the frequency of alleles in the
population? Yes it does, though only a tiny bit. But it's the sum of all
the deaths and births in a generation or series of generations that are
generally thought of as being evolution. This is like asking if one
water molecule is an ocean.

> I suppose an argument could be made that mutation is involved in death. Maybe not a reasonable argument, but that wouldn't seem to matter in this thread, with you trying to support your claim that evolution does not require mutation, using a certain peculiar definition of evolution.

I would be interested in seeing your argument that mutation is involved
in death. Of course mutations do sometimes cause death; we call them
lethal mutations. But what would be the relevance?

>> I notice you consistently ignore all requests for your preferred
>> definition of evolution.
>
> I don't have a preferred definition of evolution, John. And I don't recall any of these supposed many requests that I consistently ignore.

Sure, you don't recall them because most of the time you don't actually
read what anyone says. You must have a preferred definition because you
feel free to say what is and isn't evolution. Perhaps you haven't
thought about it.

[John Harshman]

It wasn't a yes or no question. But if you actually read this little
exchange (again, with an eye to comprehension), you should be able to
see why your failure to notice that migration is synonymous with others
from outside the population. More evidence that you don't understand
paraphrasing.

[broger...@gmail.com]

It's kind of amazing that this thread can go on seemingly indefinitely.
There is a common, minimalist definition of evolution as "change in allele frequencies in a population."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/

"In the early-mid 20th century, the “modern synthesis” gave birth to population genetics, which provided a mathematization of Darwinian evolutionary theory in light of Mendelian genetics (see also the entry on ecological genetics). This yielded a prevalent—probably the most prevalent—understanding of evolution as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next”.

Using that definition of evolution, it is obvious that evolution can occur without new mutations.

On the other hand, that definition does not capture all of what most people mean by evolution, including the emergence of new species, or the changes in the diversity of organisms between, say, the Cretaceous and the present. Under any definition of evolution that includes those phenomena mutation is certainly required.

So to ask "does evolution require mutations, yes or no?" without specifying which definition you are using is pointless. Unless the point is simply to generate a lot of heat and no light.

[erik simpson]

Bingo!

[Glenn]

I wouldn't be surprised that John would agree to "pointless".


But regardless of any definition, mutations are always occurring in the living. That might be something for John to put in his pipe.

"Mutation rates in humans have been estimated to be on the order of 10−4 to 10−6 per gene per generation. The rate of nucleotide substitutions is estimated to be 1 in 108 per generation, implying that 30 nucleotide mutations would be expected in each human gamete."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/mutation-rate

Not sure what percentage of that are germ line mutations, but then John can always argue that mutations are not constant, and so not required for evolution to occur in between mutations. Also some don't 'stick", so the same argument applies between what 'sticks".

[Glenn]

From
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/how-many-different-kinds-of-birds-are-there/#comments

"Because common descent is evolution, regardless of the source of mutation. Selective breeding is evolution too. You don’t think so?

Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation.

Agreed. But evolution doesn’t require random mutation."

Earlier in the comments:

"2) Does molding out of clay count as de novo, ex nihilis?

John Harshman: If you think that god intervenes in common descent to tweak the mutations or drive their fixation, I’d still call that theistic evolution

Why is that?

Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation."

[Glenn]

Clearly the subject included common descent, not microevolution.

But now - what is the def of common descent?

[jillery]

Except Harshman has specified a definition, while Glenn has rejected
Harshman's definition, and refused to provide his own definition.
There is no equivalence here.

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

>It is so admiral [sic] to want to 'help" me. Perhaps you could restore what you claim I snipped.

********************************************

Neither of those mean what you seem to think. They don't contradict
what I said. Note that your quotes say that mutations are the raw
material of evolution, not that they are evolution itself, which
according to those little quotes comes afterward, "differential
reproduction" in the first case and "the evolutionary process" in the
second.

Now, is it possible for evolution to occur during a period in which no
mutations occur in the population? Suppose we start with 2 alleles at
50% each, and one of them becomes extinct while the other is fixed.
Was that evolution? Suppose we have 10 loci, each with 2 alleles, each
influencing body size by 10%. Suppose the allele frequencies change to
that the population mean size increases, even beyond the initial
population variation. Was that evolution?

**********************************************

I bet 100 Quatloos you won't admit or even acknowledge your unmarked
snip.

>And also it might help me to hear why you prefer a peculiar interpretation of one definition of "evolution", and can explain why the above quote means: 'Mutation is fundamental to evolution" does not mean "mutation is fundamental to evolution", or 'evolution requires mutation'.

Mutation is necessary to evolution in the long term.
Mutation is not necessary to evolution in the short term.
Evolution occurs continuously over all periods of time as short as a
single generation, and as long as the lifetime of a star.
These things have been said many times in thread.

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

You did not read my comments correctly, My comments do not disagree
with Harshman's comments, but affirm them.

>"These processes" necessarily include mutation, and you claim that necessarily means evolution. That means evolution requires mutation.

It's not worth untangling your mangled misrepresentation when you
continuously mangle them. Evolution occurs across generations *and*
over time. What is necessary for evolution to occur is at least one
source of variation. There are many sources of variation. None are
*necessary*, all are *sufficient*, sources of variation across
generations. Of these many sources of variation identified, only
mutation is sufficient to provide variation over arbitrarily long
periods of time. That's a distinction that has been pointed out to
you many times by many posters in this thread and by the articles you
cited.

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 11:50:21 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>jillery, I doubt you even know what you believe.

Glenn, your mangled misrepresentations make it absolutely clear you
don't know what you're talking about and are proud of it.

> You're just here to be contrary.

Your posts show you have a near monopoly on "contrary".

>What does "It says just that but are not the exact words" indicate.

Your quote above aren't my words.

[Glenn]

According to John, evolutionist is happening all the time, within generations, and in real time. Your incessant mindless noise is boring.

[Glenn]

On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 5:00:43 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 11:50:21 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >jillery, I doubt you even know what you believe.
> Glenn, your mangled misrepresentations make it absolutely clear you
> don't know what you're talking about and are proud of it.
> > You're just here to be contrary.
> Your posts show you have a near monopoly on "contrary".
> >What does "It says just that but are not the exact words" indicate.
> Your quote above aren't my words.
> --

You have nothing but mindless noise.

[John Harshman]

Yep. Don't think even Glenn has failed to notice that.

> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/
>
> "In the early-mid 20th century, the “modern synthesis” gave birth to population genetics, which provided a mathematization of Darwinian evolutionary theory in light of Mendelian genetics (see also the entry on ecological genetics). This yielded a prevalent—probably the most prevalent—understanding of evolution as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next”.
>
> Using that definition of evolution, it is obvious that evolution can occur without new mutations.
>
> On the other hand, that definition does not capture all of what most people mean by evolution, including the emergence of new species, or the changes in the diversity of organisms between, say, the Cretaceous and the present. Under any definition of evolution that includes those phenomena mutation is certainly required.
>
> So to ask "does evolution require mutations, yes or no?" without specifying which definition you are using is pointless. Unless the point is simply to generate a lot of heat and no light.
>

Sounds fine to me, except that I would claim that allele frequency
change in populations can indeed explain speciation.

[John Harshman]

Well, not always. Many bacterial generations can go by without a
mutation. But I quibble. Sure, mutations happen. So?

> "Mutation rates in humans have been estimated to be on the order of 10−4 to 10−6 per gene per generation. The rate of nucleotide substitutions is estimated to be 1 in 108 per generation, implying that 30 nucleotide mutations would be expected in each human gamete."
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/mutation-rate
>
> Not sure what percentage of that are germ line mutations, but then John can always argue that mutations are not constant, and so not required for evolution to occur in between mutations. Also some don't 'stick", so the same argument applies between what 'sticks".

Those are all germ line mutations. They happen all the time, but the
point is that evolution would happen even if they didn't.

[Glenn]

That is more than a quibble. It occurs to me that bacteria haven't been the fastest evolutionists in the crowd. But I quibble:

"Bacterial mutation rates typically range from 1 in 10 million to 1 in a billion base substitutions per nucleotide per generation (reviewed in [54]), but bacteria with approximately 100-fold higher mutation frequencies are frequently found in both natural and clinical environments"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2018.0094

That was just the first hit on google. What about "generations can go by"?

Nothing constantly "goes by", John. No population or individual is constantly migrating to and or fro, for example.

> > "Mutation rates in humans have been estimated to be on the order of 10−4 to 10−6 per gene per generation. The rate of nucleotide substitutions is estimated to be 1 in 108 per generation, implying that 30 nucleotide mutations would be expected in each human gamete."
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/mutation-rate
> >
> > Not sure what percentage of that are germ line mutations, but then John can always argue that mutations are not constant, and so not required for evolution to occur in between mutations. Also some don't 'stick", so the same argument applies between what 'sticks".
> Those are all germ line mutations. They happen all the time, but the
> point is that evolution would happen even if they didn't.

So you say, and you would label that evolution. As I said, I'd label that macaroni.
But by your own admission, mutation is always changing the allele frequency. If mutations never occurred, there wouldn't be any more population over time. Can you guess why?

[John Harshman]

What about it? You have to try to make some explicit point, because it's
difficult to guess what you're trying to hint at, especially since it's
likely that you misunderstand something.

> Nothing constantly "goes by", John. No population or individual is constantly migrating to and or fro, for example.

Not sure what the point was there either.

>>> "Mutation rates in humans have been estimated to be on the order of 10−4 to 10−6 per gene per generation. The rate of nucleotide substitutions is estimated to be 1 in 108 per generation, implying that 30 nucleotide mutations would be expected in each human gamete."
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/mutation-rate
>>>
>>> Not sure what percentage of that are germ line mutations, but then John can always argue that mutations are not constant, and so not required for evolution to occur in between mutations. Also some don't 'stick", so the same argument applies between what 'sticks".
>> Those are all germ line mutations. They happen all the time, but the
>> point is that evolution would happen even if they didn't.
>
> So you say, and you would label that evolution. As I said, I'd label that macaroni.
> But by your own admission, mutation is always changing the allele frequency. If mutations never occurred, there wouldn't be any more population over time. Can you guess why?

I can't. Are you thinking about telling me?

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/3/22 2:50 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:35:43 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 5:20:43 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/3/22 12:36 PM, Glenn wrote:

[huge snip]

>> It's kind of amazing that this thread can go on seemingly indefinitely.
>> There is a common, minimalist definition of evolution as "change in allele frequencies in a population."
>>
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/
>>
>> "In the early-mid 20th century, the “modern synthesis” gave birth to population genetics, which provided a mathematization of Darwinian evolutionary theory in light of Mendelian genetics (see also the entry on ecological genetics). This yielded a prevalent—probably the most prevalent—understanding of evolution as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next”.
>>
>> Using that definition of evolution, it is obvious that evolution can occur without new mutations.
>>
>> On the other hand, that definition does not capture all of what most people mean by evolution, including the emergence of new species, or the changes in the diversity of organisms between, say, the Cretaceous and the present. Under any definition of evolution that includes those phenomena mutation is certainly required.
>>
>> So to ask "does evolution require mutations, yes or no?" without specifying which definition you are using is pointless. Unless the point is simply to generate a lot of heat and no light.
>
> Bingo!

The problem is not with the definition of evolution. The problem is
Glenn, and only Glenn. He doesn't *care* about biological reality. If
he did, he would go to a library and learn something. No, his only care
is to get people to respond to him, probably on the insane assumption
that being an asshole makes him important.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Glenn]

I thought about that when I posted it. Since you can apparently put 2 and 2 together, I suggest you re-read the above post.