I'm thinking of doing a series on "genetics for beginners" after I'm done with geology. Actually, I've already written most of the articles and drawn the diagrams.
However, I have a lot of things to do right now.
I'll undertake to answer the questions Faith wants answering if she'll turn up on this thread and ask me them one at a time. But I'm not going to write a series of posts explaining genetics from the bottom up until I've finished with geology.
I don't think it needs to get over anyone's head. The tricky bit is the chemistry (I think) but the fact is that you don't need to know any of the chemistry, any more than if I was teaching computer programming I'd get into the details of how electricity works. I don't even know how electricity works. I think it involves electrons ... and magic.
In the meantime, I'm happy to answer particular questions, but as I say I won't start a general course until I've finished with geology. My devoted fans will be pleased to know that I've managed to get an actual job for which I get paid with genuine pieces of green paper, so I don't have as much free time as I used to.
Well, if you pack each gene with introns, and every base has an equal chance of being an indel, then you increase the chance that a frameshift mutation will be canceled out by another one, downstream.
I still don't follow that. Yes, if you make the gene longer, than there's more likely to be two indels in it, but there's also more likely to be one, or three which are not all of the same kind, or four, or ... etc. The ideal number is zero.
Also, how would it help if you got a compensating indel in an intron? This intron is taken out before the translation. If it was translated and then the amino acid sequence corresponding to the intron was taken out after the translation, then an indel in the intron would compensate for an opposite indel in an exon, but it isn't ...
... I don't really see what you're getting at, or if I do, it isn't right. One or the other.