The fundamental problems with Fisher's not-so-fundamental Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@John_Harshman

This is the second time in a day you’ve made that claim. Where did you get the number from?

Profuse apologies for the late reply John, I actually had to track down where I did get that figure from. In the process I realized I got the 99% from a presentation by Michael Behe to a private group. I did not realize he may not have used that figure outside the group.

Michael Behe has publicly characterized Lenski’s “beneficials” as 90% function compromising.

This is an important topic in and of itself, I’m going to start a thread on it.

I’ll provide a link shortly.

EDIT:

here’s the link

What percent of "beneficial" mutations are function compromising?

I’ve said 99 percent of beneficial mutations are function compromising. This is due to the fact there are many ways to break something relative to the few ways of making something. Also, the pan-genome of E. Coli for example shows pressure to: either lose genes not acquire them through plasmid exchange There is a lot of pressure to lose parts of no-immediate use. That is powerful force of adaptation. Some have said only 20% of E. Coli’s genomes are conserved. Here a figure of its pan genome, but it shows what 20% means approximately: [pan_genome] I got the 99% figure regarding function-compromising beneficials from a presentation by Michael Behe to a private group. I didn’t realize perhaps that Behe might officially only suggest 90% in public. If he’s said 99% somewhere publicly, I’d be happy to cite that. The 90% figure was in his response to Lenski’s criticism of Darwin Devolves. Other’s are welcome to supply what they think the proper figure should be. If we say, “w…