[maro]

No, a non-neutral change, one that affects function, will (or is likely to) be selected for or against to one degree or another. For example, sickle shaped hemoglobin has been selected FOR in Africa, apparently because having this trait helps with malaria. Sickle shaped hemoglobin is selected AGAINST outside the malaria belt. Traits that are selected for or against cannot be said to continue to have the original probability of occurring, PI. This is the core of evolutionary theory. It is a powerful idea, and true--within its narrow domain of changes that can be reached in a small number of bitflips from a prior state of DNA. My argument throughout this thread has been that this theory CANNOT apply (or seems implausible given our current state of knowledge) to changes that require a large number of bitflip changes. In THAT case, it is difficult to see how a path of intermediates could exist and be selected for, culminating in an individual having the trait under discussion.

[Nebullis]

Do you understand that there are more mechanisms of genetic change than single point mutations?

[Nebullis]

One single point mutation may or may not lead to a selectable trait. For practical purposes, the probability of such a single point mutation is the same, regardless of whether it leads to a selectable trait or not.

Have you heard of recombination? Transposable elements?