Are mutations enough to explain natural selection?

quote:

---

"First, if the mutation is neutral (which part of Gzus agrees is ) then the odds it survives and fixates in a population is equal to its initial frequency, according to
evolutionists. So in a population of 100,000, the odds are 1 in 100,000 it will survive and fix. You both act as if it?s unity."

---

Are you telling me that the %chance of an organism successfully passing on a new neutral mutation is inversely proportional to the population size?While "unity" is certainly too high, just how did you get the 1/100,000 figure? Actually, I know how you calculated it -it's the inverse of the population size - but why do you think this calculation is valid? You have sources at the end of your post, so I assume you got this from one of them...care to elaborate?

OK, I'll trust you, not having the book handy and not willing to try to derive the probabilities myself...So what are the implications of that?Standard approximations of mutation rates for mammals (for example) suggest that individuals will average several mutations apiece.So, in a population of 100,000, it is extremely likely that SOME neutral mutation from the current generation will fixate. This is true for EVERY generation. Now that I think of it, sounds like a pretty quick way to build up lots of genetic variation.So, in a large population, the chance for any INDIVIDUAL mutation to fixate becomes small, but there MORE mutations available per generation.So...what's the problem?

You don't have a problem with my analysis of the increase of genetic variability through the accumulation of neutral mutations, then. but you do have two related problems:1. Haldane's estimate of beneficial mutationsHaldane did NOT estimate the rate of beneficial mutations to be 1 in 300 generations; rather - unless you're referring to some other 300 generation estimate - that's the time for a SUBSTITUTION of a gene that becomes disadvantageous (e.g. due to an environmental change). Haldane did NOT, as far as I know, consider the fate of a new, rare, beneficial mutation. Nor is this the estimate of the rate of appearance, anywhere in the genome, of new beneficial mutations.Also, I'm not sure what specific point you're making with this conservative estimate of beneficial mutations, anyway. Speciation, for example, only requires neutral mutations (or other genetic change).2. "fanciful" selection is required to weed out the larger number of harmful mutationsI wasn't aware that selection against harmful mutations was controversial; even creationists usually grant this. Perhaps you could point out an example of what you're talking about when you talk about "tales of ... almost omniscient" selection. I mean, in the scientific literature, presumably population genetics.