I don't think that one beneficial mutation per 1,000,000 matings is terribly wrong - it certainly isn't the worst mistake in your calculation. Unfortunately when you came to use it, you used one beneficial mutation per 1,000,000 generations which is very different. Then you made an even worse mistake by insisting that it was necessary to get 50 beneficial mutations in consecutive matings - I can't imagine why. YOur calculation was not even meaningful.
quote: BTW is anybody else curious why physicists are much more open to the possibility that Einstein made mistakes than evolutionists are about Darwin?
You're wrong about that. Darwin's explanation of heredity was dead wrong, for instance, and it isn't talked about BECAUSE it is dead wrong. Steven Jay Gould quite often criticised Darwin (and it seems that the criticisms were not even entirely accurate !). If there are equivalent criticisms of Einstein, I'm not aware of them. And of course, nobody has problems with adding to Darwin's theories - he's no taken as the last word at all.
The problem is not that Darwin is above criticism - the problem is that the criticisms are WRONG.