Book review of Nature\'s I.Q. (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 27, 2009, 21:51 (5365 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Thursday, August 27, 2009, 21:57

By your own numbers, 65% of mutations are perfectly fine. To me, that is the definition of "fine more often than not." You know what you could do in Vegas with 65%?
> 
> I have a different view of those numbers: 70% going nowhere or worse. This is why Haldane raised the issue of his dilemma, as it is called. Evolution advances very slowly, as it is well known, so some species in a rapid change of nature might die out faster than they can adapt. - Can't really call neutral mutations bad, they lay the foundation for further changes. What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. - Your exact words were that the majority of mutations are "generally deleterious." By your own numbers, this is false. For rounding's sake, 33% are deleterious. Everything else is non-deleterious. That means that the majority of mutations are non-deleterious. It's a BIG stretch to claim "generally deleterious" against a 2/3 survival rate. - Furthermore, the middle 3rd are neutral... meaning exactly that. You can't say an organism is "going nowhere" when for all you know that neutral mutation can set the next generation up for something else. - [EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"