Posted: Jul 27, 2022 5:45 am
by Spearthrower
Greg the Grouper wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
If you were not naively regurgitating disinformation but instead were interested in the topic honestly, you would obviously know very well that all of this is STILL covered completely by selection, because comparing 2 individuals of a species, the individual with fewer deleterious mutations will still on average produce more surviving offspring.

It depends on the strength of selection, not the number of mutations. You, incorrectly, claimed that selection weeds out all deleterious variations. It doesn't. All of us inherit slightly harmful mutations that marginally degrade our survival chances.

In what regard are these mutations bad, if they don't result in a given organism falling prey to natural selection?

He doesn't really understand what he's talking about. It's live action roleplaying, unfortunately. One glance through the OP will show you what kind of mind this is! :lol:

Your point is sound, although I'd rephrase the last part, though, I would change 'fall prey to....' to 'the individual's fitness being negatively impacted'.

An organism doesn't need to die from deleterious mutations for it to experience the negative effects of mutations - it can lead a wonderful, healthy, and abundant life - but may just not be able to reproduce, for example.