Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: I'm a Lone Cowhand
Message-ID: <590@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-May-85 19:43:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.590
Posted: Wed May  1 19:43:17 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 08:34:22 EDT
References: <250@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 21


 >         A viable, improved  mutation is obviously highly unlikely.  It is
 > therefore to be expected that any experiment which uses a small number of
 > individuals and a small number of generations (compared to the number which
 > is used by nature) is unlikely to produce a viable mutation.
 >         Imagine shuffling a deck of cards and dealing out several hands.  
 > If you did that 10 times and found no royal flushes, would you conclude
 > that a royal flush is impossible to get?

I disagree that viable mutations are unlikely.  Gross mutations that have
major effects on the organism are probably not viable, but such gross mutations
are in the minority as far as mutations are concerned.  Mutations are happening
all the time, and not many of them have so much significance as to dramatically
affect the organism, as creationists would have us believe.  The viability of
such minor mutations may be a little harder to determine.   Note that a
royal flush is not the only winning poker hand, a pair or an ace-high
'nothing' can be 'viable' too.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd