[CarrotAndStick]

There’s little question that most mutations are negative. That’s interesting... Never thought of it like that before. It does seem odd. There’s little question that most mutations are negative.

The question whether mutations are "negative" or "positive" cannot be answered by looking at the mutation alone. It needs to be looked at, relative to the environment. For a male peacock, a large tail is a positive mutation, with regard to its chances of mating. But if you look at it in the context of its predators, a large tail is a particularly disadvantageous trait, simply because it drastically reduces the peacock's chances of escaping from the predator.

This leads to the ultimate idea that evolution, or mutations, needn't necessarily be positive or negative. How it fits the species in question, depends on what use it provides the species, during the particular time the mutation arises. If stupidity is rewarded, it will become a positive trait. Evolution is not always progressive, in the conventional sense.

[babygene]

“For a male peacock, a large tail is a positive mutation, with regard to its chances of mating.”

What makes you think that the male peacock got it’s tail feathers by evolving? There’s no evidence of that...

[Kurt Evans]

“If stupidity is rewarded, it will become a positive trait.”

The liberal worldview in ten words.

[PreciousLiberty]

“This leads to the ultimate idea that evolution, or mutations, needn’t necessarily be positive or negative. How it fits the species in question, depends on what use it provides the species, during the particular time the mutation arises. If stupidity is rewarded, it will become a positive trait. Evolution is not always progressive, in the conventional sense.”

Exactly. Many extinct species evolved into a specialized niche that later vanished. Whatever mutations that provided an advantage while the niche existed, were detrimental when it vanished.

As to “unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed...”, well once we’ve had 10,000 years (or even 1,000) of scientific record perhaps things will look different. Evolution happens on very large time scales, so expecting to be there to observe an extremely rare event isn’t too reasonable. DNA analysis seems a pretty good way of tracing ancient mutations though.

[Scotsman will be Free]

So, what came first? The male Peacock mutating a large tail or the female being attracted to large tails? If small tails were the norm, why would a female find the larger tail more attractive at all?