Interesting, I’ll have to look into that. (Could you cite a source on that?)
These are the same sorts of considerations present and dealt with in the article:
EDIT:
(Oops, I should have noticed that Dr Carter already addressed the ‘mice’ question in this very article!)
What about other fast-reproducing organisms?
One might reply, “But mice have genomes about the size of the human genome and have much shorter generation times. Why do we not see evidence of GE in them?” Actually, we do. The common house mouse, Mus musculus , has much more genetic diversity than people do, including a huge range of chromosomal differences from one sub-population to the next. They are certainly experiencing GE. On the other hand, they seem to have a lower per-generation mutation rate. Couple that with a much shorter generation time and a much greater population size, and, like bacteria, there is ample opportunity to remove bad mutations from the population. Long-lived species with low population growth rates (e.g. humans) are the most threatened, but the others are not immune.
Dr Carter does not appear to agree with your assessment of mice mutation rates (and counts per generation) compared to humans, but in any case that’s not the only factor at work here.
EDIT:
After doing some searching, it appears the latest data would validate what Dr. Carter said about these rates:
Recent whole genome sequencing (WGS) studies have estimated that the human germline mutation rate per basepair per generation (∼1.2−10−8) 1,2 is substantially higher than in mice (3.5-5.4−10−9) 3,4, which has been attributed to more efficient purifying selection due to larger effective population sizes in mice compared to humans.5,6,7.