Role of Mutations

I'm not sure if this should be a new topic or if an existing thread can answer my question, but my question is:What is the role of neutral mutations in selection?My first thought upon contemplating this question is that neutral mutations have just as much chance to spread among a group as beneficial ones and then may become beneficial on a grand scale (seeing as how generation upon generaration has been able to pass this on without selective pressure either way) pending some event, or even a non-event, but just the fact that enough of the group now hold this mutation.For example: The evolution of human speech (I am not a biologist or a linguist and have only a basic understanding of how speech may have evolved, so this may be too wide of an example). If a certain individual(s) had the mutation, either for the development of the vocal box or the area in the brain capable of abstract speech/thought, or both, the mutation would not be immediately beneficial to the group as a whole because only the one individual or even a tiny group (possibly isolated from each other at first) would possess this ability. However, over successive generations (the new mutations being neutral and, therefore, not necessarily selected out) the group of individuals would become larger and the gene would then become beneficial to a larger group and those who did not possess it would then possibly be selected out or remain in stasis or branch off because of the new group occupying the same niche. The mutation(s) remains beneficial to the new group and is, consequently, strongly selected for while it remains beneficial.AIE: Although I want to address the neutral mutations first, I suppose the same thing could be said about mutations that in previous generations would have been damaging, but eventually came along at a time where they became beneficial.I guess I am trying to posit that the argument made by some that most mutations are harmful or neutral, and that that somehow negates evolution, could be erroneous because of the possibility of a constantly changing nature of mutations.If this does go to topic, I suppose it should be in the miscellaneous threads.

I see what you are saying and that could be the case most of the time. However, in certain other cases, such as the development of speech or other adaptations that would not be immediately beneficial to a whole group, this phenomenon would not also require any other unlikely coincidences. It would only require that eventually the trait would be utilized by a larger group after successive generations acquired the adaptation, not necessarily a change in environment or other selective pressure, and would therefore be perceived as beneficial.Like I said, speech may not be the best example because I know that many differing biological factors contributed to our specific speech capabilities (controlled breathing, the development of Broca's area, etc), but I don't feel that a new trait existing in a population before it's need is immediately apparent or even utilized suggests ID one whit. I think it actually may help ToE by way of explaining some of the more abstract problems being studied (i.e. emotions, social behavior, the ability to learn). Sorry for the haziness. I had a hard time constructing the question because I was dealing in hypothetical scenarios with limited information and I guess it shows But, yes, that is roughly what I am saying. I agree with that, but only if we are throwing environmental change or differences into the mix. Mutations such as human speech and, arguably, other forms of animal communication do not necessarily depend on being selected for or against in any given environment. I would argue that the specific ways in which the communication ability forms in individual species does develop under selective pressure (i.e. birds' mating calls, submissive postures in many social mammals, etc), but the ability to recognize posturing, speak or otherwise vocalize, in general, does not necessarily have to happen or be passed on to successive generations because of any external pressure. It is perceived as beneficial, but the absence of it (in the whole popuation, not just one individual) isn't always deleterious, either. I hope that makes some sense LOLI'm still trying to come up with other examples that may help illuminate my questions for you, but right now I am stuck on speech/communication. Does anyone know of any good articles/books on the development of speech that can help me narrow my argument?Thanks for your input WK Edited by Jaderis, : To fix quote box

Thank you EZ for the names you mentioned. One of my reasons for posting this question was so that someone might point me in the direction of existing research regarding neutral mutations.I agree that the terms are loaded and that many creationists/IDers tend to forget that mutations can and do switch sides, so to speak. Many of their arguments are based on some form of "well the majority of mutations are bad" and I want to look up research to support that they don't always remain so and thus increase my own understanding and give me some data to back up my ideas.

Yes, that's the first part. The second part would be how certain mutations that in and of themselves do not benefit a population in a physical or survival sense are utilized by the population and become beneficial in a more abstract (for lack of a better term) way.

She I was really hoping to limit the discussion to neutral mutations at first because I knew this scenario would pop up and I don't see how it applies to my first question. My original idea was that there can be certain mutations that exist without selective pressure because they do not directly affect the survival of the individual or species by themselves, but, when utilized by a larer group once it spreads, becomes apparently beneficial.I would love to discuss the possibility of mutations appearing de novo with you a little later on, tho, especially how it may apply to the introduction of chemicals into an environemnt (A la the nylonase enzyme and insecticide/antibiotic resistance organisms). Was it the chemicals that prompted the mutation, a reoccuring mutation inherent in the species that had either no function or a deleterious effect prior to the introduction of the chemical, or a truly random mutation occuring at just the right time? Or something else entirely?I'll let you know when I am ready to discuss that. Probably very soon, methinks.

I realize that they occur without selective pressure and that the selection follows the expression, that's not what I suggested. (BTW, I am not being combative, just pointing out what I meant)What I meant was that they exist and persist, like you said, outside of any selective pressure and that they subsequently become intrinsic to that population (and, perhaps, perceived as beneficial), but they really have no bearing on the survival of the species. Something like this could be an explanation for why humans (and other animals) have emotions, or better yet, specific emotions or how we expres them. I noticed a thread on altruism...maybe something like that?Maybe you can point me towards some research on the evolution of emotions, if you know of anything offhand ,so that I can go forward with a little more background?As for the rest of your post...I absolutely agree that the chemicals are not responsible for the mutation, just the increased expression of the mutation (the second question was the one I would be arguing for, btw, the others were just for kicks). Sorry, that was a bad example and I was just throwing out possible talking points for that bad example. Everyone else, please ignore that part of my post!!! Edited by Jaderis, : Add "hand" to "offhand"

Maybe deep down I really want to be an albino peacock Really, I just like the picture. It is different from all the rest, but still amazingly beautiful and proud. But it it could also not be. It doesn't have to be...that is the crux of my question.

Kuresu,I don't see emotions as contrary to "survival of the fittest," but I do think that they reside somewhere outside of the mechanism. I understand complately that the way we express emotion has ALOT to do with our social evolution and I also accept that it may have alot to do with our overall evolution as a species, but I also think that there might be some other explanation for why particular emotions developed. Of course, they may not have evolved separately, but as a result of one or two chemical changes in our brains that covered them all. I do not hold out for some supernatural explanation at all, but there has to be some definitive answer to "are emotions the byproduct of our intelligence and brain development which prompted our social development or did the chemical changes develop first and spur on the development of our brains and thus our social evolution?" And if the latter, why/how did they occur in the first place?I will read your thread more thoroughy and ponder this a bit more. Thank you

I wouldn't go as far as to say that I have "misconceptions." I have a passing knowledge of biology and genetics (I spent most of my childhood either tagging along with my mother in university labs or asking her detailed questions about her work in biology once I was older and I have taken a few classes of my own) and I am well aware of the how mutations arise and function, although I wouldn't say that I have anywhere near expert knowledge since I haven't done any advanced study. I asked you to point me in the direction of research on emotions so that I could learn more and answer my highly hypothetical questions and I did state in the very first sentence of my OP that my post was a question and very much an unsure thing. Just an idea. I know that what I was pondering might have very well been nonsense, but it was just an idea I had and I really wanted someone to just help me gain more knowledge. Yes, I may not have even thought of it if I had a more advanced knowledge of genetics, but I am prone to crazy ideas so who knows? BTW, I never said emotions required intelligence. I was asking an either/or question that didn't specify what I thought about it ewither way. You've done that twice so far. Taking some hypothetical questions I put forward and assuming that I really believe in any of the "what ifs."I will take your advice and read scrutinizer's threads and also finish poring over the "morality" thread. I really didn't know how to ask my question and I did the best I could, but I don't think I can get an answer if I don't know how to ask for it in the right way.

Thank you Scrutinizer. That was very helpful.I am aware of the cases like the cave-dwelling animals and I knew that my comment about deleterious mutations "switching sides" was evidenced by such things, but I kinda just threw it out there to try and help explain what the hell I was asking.Unfortunately, I am not as well-versed in the sciences as I would like. I am more interested in history and politics (International Affairs major), but I am the child of a biologist and I did very well in my science courses throughout HS and college. I know that I do not know hardly enough (but not nothing at all) to be able to answer detailed questions or apparently to even ask a coherent question, lol. So thank you again for sharing your knowledge with me.

That's OK EZ. If I sounded snippy, I apologize. I actually would love to learn more about how emotions came to be through natural selection. I will read the threads about this, but if you would ever feel up to answering direct questions about it, let me know. I have plenty to ask