Replies

"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?" - Dan Day
First of all, you cited my example in your response, so don't try to distance yourself from it now.

Stop playing word games, you're not very good at it. You called it "my" example -- it wasn't, it was yours. The fact that I examined it and showed how many holes it had in it doesn't make it mine. Nor have I ever tried to "distance" myself from it, other than to point out how flawed it was. So stop trying to be cute.

Second, by my recall this is the first post that you've made to me wherein you add the new qualifier of "neutral" to your original erroneous claim that "mutations have a 100% expected chance" of being passed on to their offspring.

Then you need to work on your reading comprehension *and* your memory. From post #622, written to you, and responded to by you (and thus, one would presume, read by you):

Try to keep up with the discussion, Maro was specifically trying to calculate the odds for a combination of mutations which, and I quote, "make no functional difference".
[snip]
Again, the Maro discussion concerned "neutral" mutations which did not express as anything.
[snip]
It would help if you checked the context of a discussion before you decided to nitpick it, most of your points are moot.

This appears in the VERY SAME post in which I made the 100% expected value claim, and the fact that that claim was made in the context of the neutral mutations being discussed should have been clear to anyone.

And if *that* wasn't enough, I mentioned this to you *again* in post #718:

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.
[snip]
I even pointed that out in the part of my post which you quoted in your post, try actually reading it next time.

I again repeat my admonition -- try *reading* something before you reply to it.

And even when one considers "neutral" mutations (an oxymoron, perhaps, since by definition a "neutral" mutation makes no change in a beast),

If you consider that an oxymoron, it only shows that you have no real idea what a mutation is.

even "neutral" mutations do not have a 100% expected chance of being passed on to their offspring.

I didn't say "expected chance". I said "expected value". I even enclosed it in quotes when I used it to signal that it was a special term and not a loose layman's use of language. "Expected value" has a particular mathematical meaning, of which you appear to be unaware.

Broadly speaking, not every life form lives to successfully propagate itself. Even if a mutation manifested itself in a newborn, there is not a 100% chance that the newborn will live to breed, that the breeding will be successful, and that there will even be a birth, much less that said mutation would actually survive the whole process internally to the genes of said offspring.

No s**t, Sherlock. But then, I already explicitly acknowledged this in the very same paragraph as the "100% expected value" claim -- try reading for content next time:

The odds of the mutation appearing in subsequent offspring? The "expected value" is 100%, in a species that is neither growing significantly in population nor declining, although the actual results can vary from zero offspring carrying the gene, to a large number depending on the fecundity of the species. On average, though, the gene will be passed on to one offspring by each parent that carries it.

Yet you pretend in post after post that first mutations, and then later "neutral" mutations all have a 100% expected probability of being passed on to offspring.

I "pretend" nothing. I make supportable claims. The fact that you repeatedly misunderstand them despite having your misconceptions corrected over and over again doesn't count as adequate rebuttal.

In short, you are uneducated, wrong, and busted.

I see. Look, *I'm* not the one who can fail to read, or remember, what has been said to him two posts ago in an exchange.

Your claim (or claims, plural, if one considers your new use of the "neutral" qualifier) can not stand even cursory, much less rigorous scrutiny.

Yawn. Try again when you have a case -- and actually have a clue what I've actually written.

Even Nebullis would agree that you are wrong on this claim, and she's on your side...

Funny, in post #753 she replies:

I don't have a problem with Dan Day's statement. He explicitly states "on average". There's a variation around that mean, but random genetic drift follows simple allele sorting.

So it appears that you're wrong about *THAT*, too. That seems to be a habit of yours.

Furthermore, it's clear that she actually understands what I write, which is refreshing.