A random walk is no good as a simulation of what happens in genetics. This is the problem - you never lose. In the case of a single mutation for example with a 50% chance of getting it passed on and the individual having two children the possible outcomes are both, one or none. When you get none, the walk is finished. Your simulation does not account for the walk ever ending, therefore it gives false results.
This leads to very counterintuitive results
It gives counterintuitive results because it does not reflect reality. If you are betting on outcomes and you have one quarter to play with and keep playing indefinitely with that quarter, you may get ahead for a while but eventually you will lose your quarter and that is what happens with mutations. In fact, statistical analysis shows that the mutation will be lost in less than 10 generations.
Yes, of course they will. But it matters not how many vanish, it matters how many manage to persist.
It does matter that many will be lost. This is the basis of Haldane's dilemma. Evolutionists talk as if there is an almost infinite amount of time and an almost infinite amount of tries. However, both are finite and it is not a matter of some 4 billion years either. Taking evolutionary assumptions for example for the evolution of all mammals you have just about some 100 million years and the generations of mammals are fairly long (not like those of bacteria and insects) so you have quite a limited number of chances. You also need quite a few mutations to occur when you consider the number of species involved and the fact that to achieve the differences you need different mutations in each.
As I previously showed, small populations retain a larger percentage of mutations but produce fewer to work with, while large populations retain fewer mutations (as a percentage) but produce more overall. The net effect is that although many mutations are lost in either case, the population as a whole will acquire mutations at a rate equal to the mutation rate in a single individual.
Mutations will spread more easily in small populations because there is a greater chance of their being 'fixed'. This happens because individuals in small populations procreate with closer relatives than those in large populations. In short they are more inbred. The scientific facts show that inbreeding is bad and in fact 'inbred' is often use as an insult because of the deleterious effects it has.
That neutral mutations may persist in a population does not help evolution, because mutations are not additive amongst individuals as genetics shows. Because as I have shown a particular mutation will likely remain in only a single individual, additions to that mutation, which are required for neutral drift to accomplish any sort of evolutionary change, must rely on that single individual currently carrying the mutation to have another favorable mutation to add to it. Here is why that has an infinitely small chance of happening - the amount of unfavorable mutations far exceeds the possible neutral or favorable mutations possible and the original mutation will die due to the overwhelming chances of unfavorable mutations.
Actual measurements of non-fatal mutation rates are on the order of 1 per 1000 alleles per generation, or 4 per each human birth (1.6 deleterious).
The above is totally false. To determine that you would require the sequencing of the entire genome of both parents and the child for a large sample of the human population. No such sequencing has been done. This is an example of evolutionists just totally making up evidence for their theory.
It's just intellectually dishonest to try to dismiss reams of evidence and study as being merely attempts to "obscure the truth".
I am not dismissing reams of evidence, on the contrary. It is evolutionists who are trying to dismiss reams of evidence, in this case the certified fact that mutations are harmful to an organism, the certified fact that genetics tells us that a new allele will not spread in a population. As I showed above the random walk is a fraudulent model for what happens in genetics. It is not intuition alone that tells us that a single mutation will not spread through a population, it is verified facts. It is like saying that a person can go into a casino with one dollar and end up owning the casino. Yes it can happen - ONCE. However evolution requires that it happen all the time. Unlike gambling casinos though, where the odds are usually not too bad, with mutations there is a big joker in the deck working against the gambling mutation. That joker is called bad mutations which are even by the phony statistics of evolutionists, overwhelmingly against even a neutral mutation (you gave the phony chance of 1.6 against a neutral mutation just above). So you are not working with even odds but with massively unfavorable odds against both a mutation surviving and a mutation ever spreading. This is why evolutionists who talk about neutral drift never mention that mutations will dissappear due to unfavorable mutations intervening and destroying the 'line' which carries them.
That this occurs with mutations is not to be doubted. The facts of inbreeding show quite well that it is the non-inbreed individuals that are more successful. The facts of inbreeding show that severely inbred populations are subject to much more genetic disease than non-inbred populations. The facts of inbreeding show that inbred populations are less viable than non-inbred ones. These facts show the falsity of both neutral drift and Gould's punk-eek.
Very true. The amount of unfavorable random data mutations which occur while downloading programs over the internet will greatly outnumber the quantity of data mutations that yield new, favorable programming functionality from noisy downloads.
Likewise, most genetic programming mutations are unfavorable.