How do you know God isn't dead?

[The Grand Nudger]

You oversimplify the reality of this problem. Even if we were dealing with neutral mutations within a single gene in a single type of organism within a population there would never be enough trials to ensure that the neutral mutations would ever give rise to a new feature and later become fixed in the population.

Yet "never" manages to happen quite frequently and with very little in the way of impetus. Why do you think that is? Could it be because you have misunderstood genetic drift and selective nuetrality (as you have managed to misunderstand a great deal else about biology) - it would seem so. I notice that throughout our entire conversation you've been piling on more and more qualifiers..as if you're attempting to make my job more difficult by sheer mass of conjecture. It won't work - because we still haven't made it passed the fundamentals. Until you can adequately describe what a mutation "must be" - in order to be passed on or become fixed in a population I won't be moving any further. The correct answer to this - is that it must be non-deleterious. Full stop.

You see, this is very simple. If we have before us a population whose members are spread out unevenly (by genetic makeup) on the right and left sides of some defined area...and I annihilate either side while leaving the other intact - this is an example of genetic drift....and those traits carried unevenly by one side of the area or another will become fixed in the remaining population due to my less than genetically equivalent destruction of the available sources of heredity on other side (not that my intervention seems to be required...but if we're dealing with a sufficiently large population it sure helps to speed the process along). The genes themselves offered nothing in this exchange - neither those advantageous or neutral mutations that may exist in the remaining population are at play - and yet both may become fixed (or lost) going forward. Genetic drift is, simply put, the effect of chance on allele frequency.

An average gene contains 1000 base pairs, that’s 10^602 total possible combinations for that particular gene. So even if every atom in the Universe (10^80) were a new generation of organisms that underwent neutral mutation, and we were given a new organism every millisecond for the supposed 15 Billion years the Universe has existed we’d still only have tried 10^100 of the possible outcomes for this gene; and that is just one single gene in one particular species of organism. To suggest that all of the genes in all of the different organisms arose through neutral evolutionary processes is downright laughable.

Which is probably why it hasn't been suggested. Which leads me to ask why you've spent so much time arguing against it?

Not only this; but the functional genes within these organisms would also be undergoing mutations which would result in error catastrophe long before our targeted gene ever yielded anything even close to new and useful. You do not have enough organisms and you do not have enough time to make this model even remotely possible.

That model would be what? "The Creationist Model of Things I'd Rather Argue Against Than Modern Synthesis"?