No, I hadn't read it, but I just did.
I liked your point about beneficial vs harmful mutations, especially this bit I have extracted:
"The other side of the equation, which is often ignored, is that harmful mutations obviously work against survival. So a key input to even the simplest evolution model or simulation would have to be the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations . . . .
"Like most evolutionists, Dawkins never even mentions this ratio. He discusses the overall mutation rate, but the significance of the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations never seems to occur to him. Or perhaps he simply avoids the issue because it does not help his cause. Clearly, the rate of harmful mutations exceeds the rate of beneficial mutations . . . . But what is the ratio? Common sense suggests it is probably rather high. Imagine a random bit flip in the binary executable code of a computer operating system (e.g., Linux). What are the chances that it will improve the functioning of the system? Obviously very small. And what are the chances that it will be harmful? Obviously much higher. Perhaps several orders of magnitude higher."
I have pointed out on numerous threads that as some of the more intelligent ID exponents have argued, the odds against developing the complexity we see today, on both the macro and micro levels, is too astronomically high to be conceivable, even given the enormous size and age of the universe. You add a nice touch to this.
After debating with evolutionists, you quickly realize that they have no interest whatsoever in the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations or the "sharpness" of the natural selection "filter." In fact, they consistently demonstrate that they don't even understand the problem. They are clueless about the mathematics involved.
But why should they bother themselves with such details, since they "know" right from start that "all the empirical evidence supports the theory," and "no evidence exists for ID."
When you get right down to the nub of it, dogmatic evolutionism is the flip side of the dogmatic coin, with creationism on the other side. Evolutionists have much more in common with dogmatic creationists than they do with intelligent design advocates.
Why exactly do you "especially like" something full of ignorance, misrepresentation, and errors? Oh, right, because you're an anti-evolution creationist, and anything that attacks evolutionary biology, no matter how flawed, makes you happy as a clam...
Let's take a closer look at RussP's goofy screed, shall we?
"The other side of the equation, which is often ignored, is that harmful mutations obviously work against survival."
"Often ignored"? Just how vastly ignorant of biology does someone has to be to say such a stupid and incorrect thing? The existence of harmful mutations and the fact that they are countersurvival is not "often ignored", it's covered in every introduction to evolution I've ever seen, is dealt with in depth in any serious treatise on the subject, and is addressed in every study dealing with the effect of mutations. RussP is off to a *very* bad start in this passage.
"So a key input to even the simplest evolution model or simulation would have to be the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations . . . ."
No s**t, Sherlock. That's why biologists address it instead of "often ignore" it as RussP ludicrously and falsely claims.
"Like most evolutionists, Dawkins never even mentions this ratio."
Again the lie. It's quite simply a lie to say that "most evolutionists" never "even mention" this. Horse manure.
"He discusses the overall mutation rate, but the significance of the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations never seems to occur to him. Or perhaps he simply avoids the issue because it does not help his cause."
Did RussP actually *read* "the Blind Watchmaker"? Contrary to RussP's false claim, Dawkins discusses "the significance of the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations" on quite a few pages, including pages 124-125, 129-130, 233-24, 306, and 313.
"Clearly, the rate of harmful mutations exceeds the rate of beneficial mutations . . . . But what is the ratio? Common sense suggests it is probably rather high."
That's sweet and all, but since actual ratios of beneficial/harmful/neutral mutations have been actually measured by countless studies, RussP would be better off discussing the *actual* biology than by trying to argue by "common sense" (i.e., his own uninformed presumptions).
"Imagine a random bit flip in the binary executable code of a computer operating system (e.g., Linux).
Clue for the clueless: Linux has not been refined by billions of years of evolution to be highly fault-tolerant. Biological systems have. They are *far* more resistant to "crashing" due to random mutations than computer operating systems are.
What are the chances that it will improve the functioning of the system? Obviously very small. And what are the chances that it will be harmful? Obviously much higher. Perhaps several orders of magnitude higher."
Again, RussP might want to actually read some science journals for a change and discuss the actual evidence -- the *reality* of biological processes -- instead of relying upon what he "imagines".
And unfortunately for his "imaginary" argument, the actual breakdown of harmful/beneficial/neutral mutations is well within the range which makes evolution effective and productive. So "oops" for his conclusion.
Also "oops" for RussP's bizarre attempt to pillory Dawkins for not bogging down his discussion with exact figures on mutation ratios (which vary from organism to organism, and from gene to gene), as if Dawkins is somehow trying to sweep something under the rug that's fatal to his point, or which he has "forgotten" to take into account, when any informed biologist (which certainly includes Dawkins) knows full well that this issue has been researched ad nauseum and determined to be entirely consistent with successful evolutionary advancement.
In other words, it's such a settled non-issue that Dawkins rightfully didn't bother wasting any of the reader's time on it, and RussP's attempt to turn that into some kind of fatal flaw in Dawkins' book is either a) the result of intentional dishonesty on RussP's part, or b) the result of gross ignorance on RussP's part. You make the call.
I have pointed out on numerous threads that as some of the more intelligent ID exponents have argued, the odds against developing the complexity we see today, on both the macro and micro levels, is too astronomically high to be conceivable, even given the enormous size and age of the universe. You add a nice touch to this.
Hardly -- RussP's "argument" on this point is as childishly naive and flawed as that of almost every other "intelligent ID" (redundant much?) "exponent" when they attempt to critique a subject (evolutionary biology) they obviously haven't bothered to learn the most basic things about. They wave their hands a lot, and make arguments based on "common sense" and what they "imagine", INSTEAD OF ON THE ACTUAL REALITY, which has been determined through decades of careful study, but which the IDers don't think they have to bother to even look at before they pontificate on how impossible it "must" be.
What incompetent dolts.