Replies

You forgot the number of bacteria

Please allow me to repost my reply to your previous post as apparently part of it did not come through.

Re #2: Not all genes have the same mutatation rate.

You are correct, but that is not what I said. I said “chromosome.” However, I will stipulate that not all chromosomes have the same mutation rate, if you desire. The number I used came from the cited scientific paper and was intended to be illustratory not definitive. I think you will agree that the presence or absence of a different rate would be materially important only if was several orders of magnitude different. Additionally, it would negate my point only if the mutation rate were significantly higher for beneficial mutations.

Quick definitions (Chromosome) · noun: a threadlike body in the cell nucleus that carries the genes in a linear order

Re #3: Beneficial cannot be determined ex ante, only ex post. Most mutations are neutral and thus not selected for or against.

Again, you are correct, but your point only reinforces my illustration as it decreases the likelihood of a beneficial mutation thus lowering its probability of its occurrence.

Re #4: False premises again. Bacteria need not find mates. Even with sexual reproduction, chromosomes with mutated genes work fine (in general) with the original from the mate.

Again, you are correct but irrelevant… It appears you failed to note that I specified “complex animals” in my illustration and bacteria are neither complex nor animals.

Re #5: This claim is just false, even if it fits your intuition. The math is wrong too, there are more than 10**14 bacteria just hanging around in your gut thus something with a 10**(-10) chance of happening will happen to you about 10000 times.

The math is correct, sir. And, again, I said nothing about bacteria.

Re #6: Millions of years gives 10**10 times for things like #5 to happen, and that's only in your gut.

Sir, a million is a number with 6 zeroes to left of the decimal. In my post I cited a number with 6 to 10 zeroes in front of it (i.e., between it and the decimal to its left, or a number followed by a times sign and a 10 with a negative exponent of 6 to 10, if you will). Consequently, multiplying the two (a million years and the probability to which I referred) together will yield, at best, a single digit to the left of the decimal, and, more likely, a small fraction, i.e., a low probability of occurrence.

You need to get the mechanisms and arithmetic correct.

I would agree that we all need to things correct, wouldn’t you?