Darwin in the Genome

Firstly one can read the board without being registered as I did for some time.Secondly your lack of understanding of the importance of sample ssize is based on the discussions of human mtDNA where you dismissed the importance of using a larger sample.Thirdly you are the one who does not understand evolutionary theory as indicated by your own refusal to explain the sense in which the theory requires mutations to be random, and thus support your claim that the "non-random" mutations contradict this. In the absence of any such explanation it is clear that your "refutation" relies on a point of evolutionary theory that you do not even understand well enough to discuss. Which demonstrates that you do not even understand your own argument. Your equation of purifying selection with some imaginary idea of "neutral selection" further underlines your lack of understanding.

I have no idea why you would think that I take advice from Dawkins on which internet fora I visit or how I approach them.The section of mtDNA you considered cannot be considered a random sample - because it is not. And even a random sample has limitations which is why professional polling organsiations seek to obtain a balanced sample. And no, it is not the only relevant mtDNA that we have - as was mentioned in the thread. And of course you failed to even consider the significance of the fact that the sample offered by Dr. Page was of the same size.And I note that you still cannot explain the very point of evolutionary theory you claim to have refuted. What is even more amazing is that I have referred to it more than once and you still expect me to explain it again ! Clearly your claim to know "all the ins and outs" is false.And even if there are evolutionists who refer to "neutral purifying selection" - which I doubt - this still does not change the fact that the term neutral selection does not refer to purifying selection. In fact neutral selection is used to refer to the situation where neither purifying nor positive selection are operating. And as the referecnes I have discovered show, it is not the case that the knockout of the ACTN-3 gene is neutral even in humans (and it is certainly detrimental in other species).

I see that you still have not managed to offer an explanation of how mutatiosn are "random" according to NDT. THe best resposne you can manage is to demand that I do the work of explaining a basic point which you claim to understand - even though I have already done so more than once.I also notice that you feel the need to throw irrelevant personal attacks at Dawkins for no apparent reason. I suggest you keep your personal hatreds out of your posts.I also notice that you defend your comments by falsely claiming that they have been misrepresented. However rather than explain why your ideas were not the nonsense I suggest you instead claim that they are a strawman (since they do not represent the views of your opponents).
I also note that in a later post you drop the idea of explaining the data in an evolutionary context altogether - to answer data which points to a viable alternative (the non-redundancy of actinin-3 in other species).Your admission that you did not knwo what neutral selection was is a further evidence of your general lack of knowledge in the area of evolutionary theory.As to your final point your argument fails to deal with the fact that actinin-3 does seem to confer a benefit (that some individuals MAY gain that benefit by other means does not change the fact that the evidence shows that there is a benefit). And it seems that your argument agaisnt evolution also applies to your own GuToB - only more so. Why have non-random mutations not inactivated the ACTN-3 gene in the entire human population ?

If you DID offer such an explanation then please link to the posts where you did. However, I am certain that you have not offered such an explanation. If you do not provide links then I will regard it as an admission that your claim to have provided such an explanation is a lie.Having read your posts you certainly DO seem to hav something personally against Dawkins, given by your need to inject attacks on him into the conversation for no apparent reason at all.I have already provided links - and you apparently feel that it cannot be discussed.The term neutral selection may be misleading but so far as I can tell it is called that simply because it occupies the ground between purifying and positive selection.And no, "why" questiosn of this sort are NOT in the slightest metaphysical - unless you are claiming that the mechanisms of your non-randmom mutatiosn are metaphysical.

It is interesting that Peter continually ignores my point that his hate-figure Richard Dawkins wrote on the subject in _The Blind Watchmaker_ published in 1986"The first respect in which mutations are non-random is this. Mutatiosn are cuased by definite physical events; they don't just spontaneously happen. They are induced by so-called 'mutagens' (dangerous because they often start cancers): X-Rays, cosmic rays, radioactive substances, various chemicals, and even genes called 'mutator genes'""Second, not all genes in any species are equally likely to mutate. Every locus on the chromosome has its own mutation rate...Some parts of the chromosome are so-called 'hot-spots' with a high turnover of genes, a locally very high mutation rate""Third at each locus on the chromosomes, whether it is a hot spot or not, mutations in certain directions can be more likely than mutations in the reverse direction"