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.
That does not solve the problem because a neutral mutation has to acquire more mutations to become helpful. Now if it can only spread itself to a few individuals before it dissappears, it has very little chance of acquiring even one helpful mutation, let alone the several it would need to become useful. It would also make it well nigh impossible to create something as fantastic as new organs, wings, feathers, flippers, etc. So as I have been saying, good ol mendelian genetics completely destroys the theory of evolution by itself - and I am not even talking about the other scientific discoveries I talk about in post#1605 which have gone unrefuted and largely unchallenged.