[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Which is to say, you failed at 0, you failed at 1, you failed again at 2, and you'd likewise fail at 200,000...

No, I would succeed in my point, because at that rate of mutation, selection would play a greater role. Zero, one and two are all at the same basic scale, which is why you are using such laughably small numbers. If you were honest about it, you would admit the possibility that the graph would change at higher numbers, because it is far more logical. But, as I have found that you are untruthful, even to the point of asserting people said things that they never actually said (as you did in post #330), it is obvious that you will not even admit to the obvious. How can you trust a person's arguments when those arguments are built on lies?

[Southack]

"No, I would succeed in my point, because at that rate of mutation, selection would play a greater role."

Source? Link? Math? Example?

You've got bupkis. I proved my point for 0 mutations. I did it again for 1 mutation and again for 2 mutations.

All you've done is make a grand claim that somehow the "Easter Bunny" (reference to a different poster playing dumb above) would magically change your results if tried a bunch more times (e.g. 200,000).

You can't come close to showing such a result. Can't happen.

You lose.