"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." - Dan Day
Your point above merely confirms your original error. Nonsense.
I understand the difference between the forces at work on harmful mutations, and the *lack* of selective pressures on neutral mutations. You obviously haven't yet figured that out:
Mutations can not have a 100% expected probability of being passed on to offspring if it can be demonstrated that any mutations fail to be inherited, such as the example you cite above.
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?
Let's reinsert the qualifiers which you dishonestly snipped out of your summary:
[*NEUTRAL*] Mutations can not have a 100% expected probability of being passed on to offspring if it can be demonstrated that any [*HARMFUL*] mutations fail to be inherited
Gosh, suddenly the nature of your error becomes a lot more apparent, doesn't it?
Again, you've got an apples and oranges problem. That seems pretty common for you.
Harmful mutations do indeed get weeded out. Neutral mutations don't. Therefore the odds of propagation of one is different from the odds of propagation of the other. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
You're not making much sense here, I'm afraid. Go off and work on your thesis until it has some internal logic, then get back to me. I'm getting tired of talking about apples only to have you jump in and yell, "oranges! What about the oranges, look at my orange!"
Mutations can not have a 100% expected probability of being passed on to offspring if it can be demonstrated that any mutations fail to be inherited, such as the example you cite above. - Southack
"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. 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.
And even when one considers "neutral" mutations (an oxymoron, perhaps, since by definition a "neutral" mutation makes no change in a beast), even "neutral" mutations do not have a 100% expected chance of being passed on to their offspring.
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.
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.
In short, you are uneducated, wrong, and busted.
Your claim (or claims, plural, if one considers your new use of the "neutral" qualifier) can not stand even cursory, much less rigorous scrutiny.
Even Nebullis would agree that you are wrong on this claim, and she's on your side...