"http://www.scientia.org/cadonline/Biology/genetics/mutation.ASP
Yes I know, that is why, in the post you responded to, I said the following:
However, an immediately deleterious mutation quickly removes itself from the population.
"Doesn't look like it 'takes care of itself' to me. That's why each person has a load of deleterious mutations in their genome.
Yes, and those alleles were not immediately deleterious.
Reread my post. You will see that I differentiated between recessive and dominant genes.
"Recessive mildly deleterious mutations are everywhere. You really are uninformed if you think they are rare. They are more common than lethal mutations.
Again from my previous post:
Deleterious mutations don't accumulate unless the mutation is only deleterious when homozygous. Or if the mutation does not become deleterious until a change of environment.
You will note the qualification that the mutation does not accumulate unless it is deleterious only when homozygous. This is a reference to a recessive allele. There is no need for an allele to be homozygous if it is dominant.
This says that a dominant allele, which is subject to selection will not fix but that recessive alleles which are not deleterious until homozygous (both 'strands' have the same allele) can and do accumulate.
So you agree then that alleles can fix without selection so that selection costs are unimportant in those cases?
You are merely defining the problem so narrowly that it becomes inapplicable to the issue at hand.
Even deleterious recessives don't move to fixation in anywhere near the numbers proposed for ERVs and your effort to try to use them to justify ERV fixation is inappropriate.
You need to wake up and see that the commonly-held scenario of single-infections moving to fixation is unrealistic.