I forgot to mention tbat random mutation happenings should be factored into probabilistic genetic studies — mutations happen frequently.
From Steve Jones (pg 170) we have:”DNA’s inability to copy itself without mistakes - mutation - means that evolution is inevitable. Natural selection does nothing more than capitalize on that fact.”
Well maybe they should. But the statement "mutations happen frequently" does not address the problem of whether they add any new information to DNA such that "natural selection" can capitalize on them in positive, "creative" ways; e.g., improvement in survival fitness. Usually mutations are deleterious to the organism.
So if you're going to factor random mutations into probabilistic genetic studies, can this tell you anything about evolution per se, or only give you readings on likely morbidity/mortality outcomes respecting various types of genetic inheritance?
What does Steve Jones expect to find?
It seems to me for evolution to occur, DNA's copying mistakes (mutations) must add new information that natural selection can capitalize on. But if in fact these copying mistakes represent a degradation of existing information — i.e., they are "noise" in the communication channel that is deleterious to successful communication of DNA's "message" — then how do they contribute to species fitness?
Since DNA most often "corrects" for these copying mistakes by wiping out the organism in which they occur — then why are we speaking of this process as if it were "evolutionary?" An organism that is wiped out because of copying errors is one that will never breed and have progeny. Assuming it manages to survive for a time nevertheless, so to breed and transmit this degraded information to its offspring, then how can this be thought of as any kind of fitness improvement in the species? This looks to me more like devolution than evolution....
FWIW.