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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 27, 2009, 22:17 (5365 days ago) @ David Turell

Can't really call neutral mutations bad, they lay the foundation for further changes. What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. The word neutral means no change, and we don't know that neutral makes you stronger or prepares for further change. Mutations are chance occurrances. According to Neo-Darwin precepts, the future of evolution is not planned. I still view mutations as 30% to the good side. - David, I'm holding you the fire for this one. Neutral isn't deleterious either. There's no way to escape this bit of logic; - Claim: Mutations are generally deleterious. 
Evidence (rounded) 33% good, 33% neutral, 33% deleterious. - Your claim is not supported by evidence. 66% of mutations do not cause death, therefore they are not "generally deleterious." That claim can only be supported by the deleterious portion at 51% or greater, which again by your own data, isn't reachable. (33% != 70%) - [EDIT] - Using your exact original numbers, 30%G 35%N and 35%B, you still cannot claim "generally deleterious" for the reasons above. If 65% of mutations do nothing all the way to being beneficial, that still means they don't die.

--
\"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.\"