[AndrewC]

What don't you understand? Why don't you just ask me to explain the entire article while we're at it?

I understand it, you obviously don't. You apparently support jennyp's argument that a neutral duplication will inevitably be fixed. That is the one contraindicated. As to the random are you now disavowing the Darwinian random mutation foundation?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Please note that jennyp did not claim that neutral duplication would inevitably be fixed. She pointed out that neutral duplication would not inevitably be erased.

[VadeRetro]

I understand it, you obviously don't.

I'm following the discussion; you obviously aren't. The article cites computer studies simulating very long term histories of mutations. Neutral mutations do have a tendency to disappear over time (but new ones occur, so that at any given time you do have a bunch of neutral mutations floating around in a population).

You apparently support jennyp's argument that a neutral duplication will inevitably be fixed.

You apparently support gore's argument that jennyp's analysis is flawed. Perhaps you'd like to bolster him a little more directly by showing where he got it right.

That is the one contraindicated.

Actually, jennyp's arguments refer to gore's point that neutral mutations, being alone in the world, have practically no way to be propagated at all. In fact, it's a miracle if a favorable mutation gets propagated in gore's model.

I get very discouraged at the kinds of basic things I have to explain to you, Andrew.

As to the random are you now disavowing the Darwinian random mutation foundation?

Natural selection is not mutation. Again, I don't get the feeling I should have to tell you these things. It looks bad to me.