Talk:Mutant

message: Shouldn't the etymology section have some history on the origin of the word...?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.124.38 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: An encylopedia should probably have more about biological mutants than Marvel Comics' mutants. -- The Anome
I agree.  The Marvel Universe stuff really should be forked off to a new article.
I will begin doing this tonight, with luck.
ClockworkTroll 02:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Marvel mutants?

message: Whose decision was it to rename the article and make "wildtype" the opening description? I propose reverting the name and making Wildtype a footnote, or at least not the main thrust of the article.
---  Noclevername 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed.  Wildtype is only a minor mention in the article.  Also, Wildtype vs. Mutation is a missleading title.  Immedate change recommended. --Eldarone 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page, per the request listed at WP:RM, and the discussion here.  I agree that the previous title was unintuitive and misleading.  I've added a dablink in case anybody finds their way here when looking for The Mutants or The Mutants (San Francisco). -GTBacchus(talk) 03:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Can anybody explain to me the wikilinking of the word "Sport"?
: Agreed, it merely links to the athletic definition of sport, with a link back to mutant. I'm unlinking it. Noclevername 10:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport 

message: Isn't body hair or an extended tail an atavism, not a full mutation?
:It's both; In the cases you mentioned, the characteristic gets superceded by another gene which blocks the expression of the original genes. Absence of the blocking gene allows the earlier version to be expressed. (I'm an amateur, if someone with a background in genetics can explain it better it would be appreciated). Noclevername 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Mutation 

message: Isn't every living thing subject to (admittedly mostly imperceivable) mutations and may thus be termed a mutant? If so, could we have it mentioned in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.237.208 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinary Mutants 

message: Yesterday I came across some 'double' daisy, and I uploaded a picture of it onto Commons, calling it a mutant. But reading this article, I'm not so sure about that anymore. Do such strange forms always indicate a developmental abnormality rather than a mutation? Apdency (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To my way of thinking (fruitfly genetics background) it would depend if it's heritable or not. I'd call it a mutant (in the genetic sense) if its offspring (either F1 or F2, depending if dominant or recessive) are also doubled. Otherwise, it might just be indicative of a developmental abnormality. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Flyguy.  My intuition is that it's more likely to be a developmental abnormality, but crossing this with a regular daisy and intercrossing the offspring would be the way to tell.  It might be a good idea to rename the file to indicate that it's not known for certain that it's a mutant.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The only thing I can say is that such a form occurs elsewhere too. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, and what about these amazing caterpillar-like creatures: 5, 6, and finally Mr. Sunny Smile 7. Does that make any sense for finding out? Apdency (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Cute pictures!  Seeing how common this is actually makes me think it's even more likely to be a developmental abnormality, because if it was genetic someone would have made a novelty line of daisies that always grow like that.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutant or developmental abnormality 

message: Substituted at 00:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello everyone
I feel that this page is one-sided because it focuses so heavily on the positives of being a mutant species. I believe that more information should be included about some of the positive traits which are lost through mutation, despite the fact that the organism's total fitness may increase regardless.
JJCim (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: One sided?

message: According to the article, emphasis mine, "in biology, and especially in genetics, a mutant is an organism or a new genetic character arising or resulting from an instance of mutation, which is generally an alteration of the DNA sequence of the genome or chromosome of an organism. [...] It is a characteristic that would not be observed naturally in a specimen. The natural occurrence of genetic mutations is integral to the process of evolution." 
So, on the one hand, mutations occur naturally, but somehow they are not naturally observed in an organism? If we suppose that the "not natural" is correct, and the the "natural occurence" is incorrect, then what are we left with? What else could it be? Artificial? Supernatural? The contradiction obviously has to be resolved in favor of "natural". 
The article further specifies "mutation": 
"Mutants arise by mutations occurring in pre-existing genomes as a result of errors of DNA replication or errors of DNA repair. [...] A mutation [...] is a change in the  sequence of standard base pairs. Errors of repair occur when repair  processes inaccurately replace a damaged DNA sequence." 
It's at this point not clear whether there are mutations that do NOT occur "as a result of errors of DNA replication [...] or repair," but as the result of something else, and the statement (in p.1) that mutation is "an alteration of the DNA sequence of the genome or chromosome" seems to indicate that any change to the genome is an instance of mutation, and not all changes to the genome are due to errors: genetic engineering changes the genome too. This, taken together with the article saying outright that mutation is "not observed naturally" (and thus would be artificial, if not supernatural), seems like it identifies "mutation" as a possible or even obligate result of artifical tampering. 
All in all, the article appears to have a schizophrenic undercurrent of trying to say that GMOs (being the product of artificial "alteration of the DNA sequence") are mutants. Now, this may or may not be correct, but as the article is written now, this striving leads to comprehensibility issues. Can a biologist adjucate on this one way or another, and clean it up? 
--Don Ecchi (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory/nonsensical theoretical definition of "mutation"