You are asking the wrong question.
The effect of a mutation is harmful, neutral or beneficial depending on the environment in which it occurs. Mutations that harm some individuals may benefit the population as a whole, as with sickle-cell trait.
In large populations, there can be tens of thousands of variants of a single gene co-existing.
RussP wrote:
I am still waiting for an evolutionist to tell me what he or she thinks is the approximate ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations
js1138 replied:
You are asking the wrong question.
The effect of a mutation is harmful, neutral or beneficial depending on the environment in which it occurs. Mutations that harm some individuals may benefit the population as a whole, as with sickle-cell trait.
RussP replies:
OK, then what percentage of mutations are harmful, neutral, or beneficial in the environment in which they occur? Sorry, but you haven't dodged the basic question.
By the way, many if not most mutations are harmful or beneficial independently of the environment. If a mutation stops the circulatory system from working properly, for example, it could kill the organism regardless of the environment.
If you read Behe's description of the amazingly complex process of blood clotting, involving 12 separate steps which must all function correctly, you will begin to understand how detrimental a small mutation can be.
Oh, another question. Where in the evolutionist literature is the effect of the good/bad mutation ratio discussed? And where in the literature do evolutionists discuss the threshold at which the NDT would fail to work? Would the NDT still work if the ratio were 1,000,000 to 1? 100,000 to 1? 1,000 to 1? Or didn't anyone think to ask this question?
By the way, here's a fun question for you. Suppose I flip a randomly selected bit in the Linux kernel executable. What do you think odds are that it will help the functioning of the OS (as perceived by the user)? And what do you think the odds would be that it would harm the functioning?