No, look up "Genetic Drift".
Nope, in a situation where there is no selective advantage as here where there is a neutral mutation, the mutation does not spread. Genetic drift only changes allele frequency when new groups intermingle. Then in a sense a new larger group arises including the new members and this results in new allele frequencies of the new group. However in the case here of a single mutation occurring in one individual, it has no effect at all.
Look up "Genetic Drift" -- there's a surprisingly good chance that a neutral mutation will spread to the entire population.
Nope, the laws of Mendelian genetics are quite strict. The 50% chance of an allele reproducing is set in stone. Because all alleles have the same chance, the proportion of incidence of an allele in a population does not change when it does not have a selective advantage as is the case here.
In short, what I am telling you very simply is that the concept of neutral drift is absolute malarkey. This is proven by the persistence of recessive genetic defects. Because the carriers of the defect do not suffer from the defect, the defect remains in the population in spite of its deleterious effects on the progeny.
Also, as the population interbreeds, the various mutations in the population get "mixed and matched" very rapidly, the "2nd, 3rd, etc." mutations don't have to occur in any direct descendant of the individual with the "1st" mutation. If they occur *anywhere* in the population they can get shuffled together at any subsequent generation.
Not so, and again this is precluded by Mendelian genetics (that is why it is such a killer for evolution!). The mutations cannot get shuffled. Let say that individual A has a mutation, and individual B has a mutation, that they mate and both mutations are passed to the descendant. What will happen is that mutation A will be in one allele and mutation B will be in another allele, the alleles will not mix and create a new AB mutation. This is fairly simple genetics and it shows the impossibility of the propositions made by evolutionists.
Nope, in a situation where there is no selective advantage as here where there is a neutral mutation, the mutation does not spread.
This is quite simply false. It may spread, it may die out, it may stay the same for a while. I repeat, go look up any good reference on Genetic Drift, it goes into all this.
Genetic drift only changes allele frequency when new groups intermingle. Then in a sense a new larger group arises including the new members and this results in new allele frequencies of the new group.
This is, again, quite simply flat wrong. Go read up on the topic before you make incorrect presumptions (and pronouncements) about it.
However in the case here of a single mutation occurring in one individual, it has no effect at all.
Strike three.
Nope, the laws of Mendelian genetics are quite strict.
So are the laws of statistics. Try learning about them.
The 50% chance of an allele reproducing is set in stone.
PER OFFSPRING. Some individuals have more offspring than others.
Furthermore, it's extremely misleading to say that the 50% chance is "set in stone" -- this implies that if you have two offspring, you're guaranteed to have one with the allele and one without. This is, of course, false. Each new offspring is a "roll of the dice", and *both* could end up with the allele -- or neither. Drift happens when an allele "gets lucky", through the roll of the genetic dice.
Because all alleles have the same chance, the proportion of incidence of an allele in a population does not change when it does not have a selective advantage as is the case here.
Complete twaddle. What you're missing is that not every member of the population has an identical number of children. In a population of stable size, each individual has ON AVERAGE two children who survive to reproduction age, but needless to say there's no law of nature which *ensures* that every individual has exactly two successful offspring, no more, no less.
Genetic drift comes about as an inevitable result of the fact that possessers of a given allele will happen to be more or less successful at having children (by chance) than individuals which don't have the allele.
This isn't rocket science. Go look it up before you make any more incorrect presumptions. Write a simulation if you don't believe me, or run any of the Java-based simulators on various Genetic Drift web pages.
In short, what I am telling you very simply is that the concept of neutral drift is absolute malarkey.
...and the presumption you base this on -- that every individual will have precisely 2.0 children (one with the allele, one without, without exception) -- *ISN'T* "absolutely malarkey"?
Please. Go read up on the topic before you say anything else foolish.
This is proven by the persistence of recessive genetic defects. Because the carriers of the defect do not suffer from the defect, the defect remains in the population in spite of its deleterious effects on the progeny.
And this disproves Genetic Drift *how*, exactly? You're talking apples and oranges. Are you sure you understand what Genetic Drift actually is?
Genetic drift is perfectly compatible with the existence of "persistent" genes, so what's your point?
Also, as the population interbreeds, the various mutations in the population get "mixed and matched" very rapidly, the "2nd, 3rd, etc." mutations don't have to occur in any direct descendant of the individual with the "1st" mutation. If they occur *anywhere* in the population they can get shuffled together at any subsequent generation.
Not so, and again this is precluded by Mendelian genetics (that is why it is such a killer for evolution!). The mutations cannot get shuffled.
*snort*. Of course they can.
Let say that individual A has a mutation, and individual B has a mutation, that they mate and both mutations are passed to the descendant. What will happen is that mutation A will be in one allele and mutation B will be in another allele, the alleles will not mix and create a new AB mutation.
Yeah? So? You forgot to include the part where you explain *why* that matters.
The fact remains is that if the AB combination *in the same individual* (who cares if it's on the same allele) produce a synergistic effect (i.e., together they provide a more beneficial effect than either alone), then natural selection will act to increase the percentage of the population which has the AB *combination*.
If it confers a good enough advantage, eventually over enough time *all* of the population will have both the A and the B mutations, permanently "updating" the species.
This is fairly simple genetics and it shows the impossibility of the propositions made by evolutionists.
*cough*. Actually, it shows the inability of the anti-evolutionists to properly work out the full consequences of a scenario.
I see that earlier in the thread you were arguing about multiple "hits" to the same gene, but note that this is *not* the only way for evolutionary "progress" to occur. The "stirring" of separately modified genes, as I described, is also a powerful factor which you seem to have overlooked.
Furthermore, you overlook the case of beneficial mutations which will strongly boost the prevalence of the gene in the population, which then makes for a much larger base of "test tubes" where a subsequence mutation on the same gene can happen (thus raising the odds dramatically).
Finally, you're obviously unclear on the role that Genetic Drift plays in the spread of neutral alleles (which then provides the same larger base as described in the previous paragraph).
Don't declare something "totally impossible" until you're sure you fully understand it.