No.
"Selection" merely culls from an existing population. The math in the article gave credit to *any* correct sequence in the entire population. Thus, it is "selection" that is irrelevant to the debate, not that article.
No.
"Selection" merely culls from an existing population. The math in the article gave credit to *any* correct sequence in the entire population. Thus, it is "selection" that is irrelevant to the debate, not that article.
How, exactly, do you define a "correct" sequence? Are you assuming that anything not identical to a current genome is incorrect? If so why? If not, what makes it incorrect?
Do you have a list of correct and incorrect sequences? Do you have some objective formula for defining correct and incorrect. If so, that would be worth aa Nobel Prize. Have you published?