Hello Kaichos:
Same problem. Natural selection can do nothing until there's phenotypic modification. Of course, that can be caused by a single nucleotide switching an existing gene on or off, but that's not creating new information, it's merely modifying existing information.
This is utter babble! Please try to remember that Natural selection will not actively select AGAINST a neutral modification (i.e. a change that does not effect a phenotypic change. Most changes to base pairing won't in fact cause a phenotypic change - and you are trying to use those figures in your statistics to say these 'don't count'. But because a change that doesn't cause a phenotypic change won't be selected against, it naturally means that change remains in the gene pool....and can later change again - this time maybe to one that does cause a phenotypic change.
In this scenario we have a two-step requirement - and what you are in effect saying is that unless it happened all at once it is too improbable. But if the first step causes no significant change from a point of view of Natural Selection, then it will remain in the pool - and be there when the next (possibly real effect change takes place).
This can be the case for numerous changes. If you need a twenty step link to a beneficial phenotypic change, then as long as the first 19 steps are either beneficial OR NEUTRAL, (which the majority of single step changes are), then the accumulating changes will not be taken out.
Only if intermediate steps are disadvantageous to Natural Selection within the pertinent environment, will the change be actively selected against and weeded out.
Very simple really: Changes that are neutral or positive will remain. If the change is positive then it will be actively selected for, if neutral the possessing organism has the normal chances of passing the neutral change on to offspring, allowing that change to continue to exist and maybe then in future mutating to the next change. If that is then a positive one, it will be actively selected for survival.
This is what is meant by the power of accumulation. did you try Michael Wong's probability widget where 10 dice are rolled all at once (repeating every two seconds). Michael reckons that you should get all ten to hit six at the same time approximately once a year.
Then he provided a second widget game. This one rolls ten dice but only one at a time, with the next one rolling only after the previous one hit a six (the equivalent to a later mutation on the back of an earlier neutral or positive change). You will find that this way you will hit all ten sixes in around 60 or so turn taking about 30 - 50 seconds...the power of accumulation.
You are assuming evolution throws all the dice together, when in fact it throws them one by one. The link, again, for those interested in trying his widgets is:
Probability - (Entire article as one page)
The widgets are under item 3 a third of the way down. As RAZD would say...."Enjoy"
™ Version 4.2
(1)