"Humans are an unusually genetically homogeneous species. Nonetheless, there are single nucleotide polymorphisms every 100 - 300 bases along a 3 billion base genome. So what would happen if you applied this mutation rate to the Linux kernel?"
I'm sorry, but getting a point across to you is extremely difficult. The point was not that Linux can withstand a higher or lower mutation rate than human genes. The point was that, if a defect or mutation occurs at random, the chances of a harmful effect are much greater than the chances of a beneficial effect (and neutral effects are essentially irrelevant by definition).
Let me ask you the question that I have never had answered by an evolutionist. What is the approximate ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations in nature? I will be impressed by either a general estimate or a specific estimate for any species at any time, anywhere. Just give me a frickin' ballpark number, and tell me where it is documented. Is it closer to 10:1, 1000:1, or 1,000,000:1? Thanks.
JW Drake et al, Genetics 148:1667-1686 (April, 1998) estimate that the average human zygote has about 64 mutations, most of which occur in "junk" DNA. Of the 6 or 7 mutations remaining, a third are "silent", that is the DNA changes but the amino acid coded for remains the same.
In the 28 January 1999 issue of Nature, in the article "High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids" Walker and Kneightey estimate that the mutation rate in the effective genome is a bit higher, 4.2 mutations per individual, of which 1.6 are deleterious.
Since most truly harmful mutations are spontaneously aborted (and those can happen in the non-coding areas as well as coding), it's difficult to say if this is the correct value.
That leaves us with 2 or 3 mutations that can be acted on by natural selection. Those may be beneficial (resistant to some disease) or not (ability to roll your tongue) or somewhere in between (violet eye color -- sexual selection).
Because you keep making flawed points.
The point was not that Linux can withstand a higher or lower mutation rate than human genes.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have used it as an invalid analogy for human genes.
The point was that, if a defect or mutation occurs at random, the chances of a harmful effect are much greater than the chances of a beneficial effect (and neutral effects are essentially irrelevant by definition).
Yeah, so? Evolution quickly weeds out the harmful ones (immediately, in the case of highly harmful mutations which prevent successful embryological development, which is most of the fatal ones). Meanwhile, the beneficial ones tend to accumulate in the population. The harmful mutation rate can be *FAR* higher than the beneficial rate, and evolution can *still* proceed successfully.
So again, what is your attempted point, if any?
Let me ask you the question that I have never had answered by an evolutionist. What is the approximate ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations in nature? I will be impressed by either a general estimate or a specific estimate for any species at any time, anywhere. Just give me a frickin' ballpark number, and tell me where it is documented. Is it closer to 10:1, 1000:1, or 1,000,000:1? Thanks.
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes
Allele frequency distribution under recurrent selective sweeps
Pleiotropic effects of beneficial mutations in Escherichia coli
Hypermutability impedes cooperation in pathogenic bacteria
Role of selection in fixation of gene duplications
An empirical test of the mutational landscape model of adaptation using a single-stranded DNA virus
The rate of compensatory mutation in the DNA bacteriophage phiX174
Experimental studies of deleterious mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Inferring Deleterious-Mutation Parameters in Natural Daphnia Populations
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
New estimates of the rates and effects of mildly deleterious mutation in Drosophila melanogaster