Replies

You'll have to explain to me how the "expected value" for the probability of a mutation being passed to offspring is 100% when you admit that mutations such as two-headed snakes WON'T propagate to their offspring. - Southack

"Because detrimental mutations like having two heads strongly tend to be weeded out (by interfering with propagation), whereas neutral mutations (the sort being discussed) don't." - Dan Day

Your point above merely confirms your original error. Mutations can not have a 100% expected probability of being passed on to offspring if it can be demonstrated that any mutations fail to be inherited, such as the example you cite above.

"Because detrimental mutations like having two heads strongly tend to be weeded out (by interfering with propagation), whereas neutral mutations (the sort being discussed) don't." - Dan Day
Your point above merely confirms your original error.

Nonsense.

I understand the difference between the forces at work on harmful mutations, and the *lack* of selective pressures on neutral mutations. You obviously haven't yet figured that out:

Mutations can not have a 100% expected probability of being passed on to offspring if it can be demonstrated that any mutations fail to be inherited, such as the example you cite above.

It was *your* cited example, don't try to foist it off on me.

Is it *really* your contention that because harmful mutations get weeded out, that it is *therefore* not possible for neutral mutations to propagate?

Let's reinsert the qualifiers which you dishonestly snipped out of your summary:

[*NEUTRAL*] Mutations can not have a 100% expected probability of being passed on to offspring if it can be demonstrated that any [*HARMFUL*] mutations fail to be inherited

Gosh, suddenly the nature of your error becomes a lot more apparent, doesn't it?

Again, you've got an apples and oranges problem. That seems pretty common for you.

Harmful mutations do indeed get weeded out. Neutral mutations don't. Therefore the odds of propagation of one is different from the odds of propagation of the other. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

You're not making much sense here, I'm afraid. Go off and work on your thesis until it has some internal logic, then get back to me. I'm getting tired of talking about apples only to have you jump in and yell, "oranges! What about the oranges, look at my orange!"