Real Science Radio CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 1)

[One Eyed Jack]

Due to blind (unintentional) mutations certain trade offs were made...

That doesn't even make sense. How can trade-offs be made with no clearly defined goal in mind?

Bob called these trade offs 'breaking'

No, he didn't.

Do you also think trade-offs means 'breaking' something?

You've gotta build a plane before you can break it -- trade-offs are made in the design stage.

BTW: it is not true F-15 was air-superiority fighter only; it was used many times in ways F-117 is employed (Libya, Vietnam and so on).

We didn't have stealth fighters back then.

I think the nature is the best judge: if it is not an improvement how come it is not as rare in Africa as it is in Europe?

Just because it's more common in some places doesn't mean it's an improvement. You're better off without sickle-cell anemia or malaria.

Have I ever said evolution is designed by anybody?

You said there were trade-offs -- that implies design.

You didn't get the main idea of analogy.

I understood your analogy -- I just didn't think it was a very good one.

 

[Morphy]

That doesn't even make sense. How can trade-offs be made with no clearly defined goal in mind?

That's perfectly make sense. Remember there is natural selection and survival of the fittest - thus all negative mutations are easily removed from the gene pool while trade-offs and positive ones remain.

That's perfectly logical.

Morphy: Bob called these trade offs 'breaking'
One Eyed Jack: No, he didn't.

KGOV.com:

"And Morphy on TOL: regarding Sickle Cell Anemia, asks Bob:
“Well, if a red blood cell is malaria resistant what is it if not improvement???”
To which Bob answers: broken."

Don't lie, Jack, it's a sin.

You've gotta build a plane before you can break it -- trade-offs are made in the design stage.

Jack, unless you understand my example wasn't about ways of designing but about advantages and disadvantages of trade-off our discussion is futile.

If you keep focusing on ways of designing it's like discussion of kids:
- the car is white!
- NO!!! Absolutly not!!! Can't you see it has 4 wheels?!?!
- I said it is white...
- That doesn't make sense - you can count with me, there are 4 wheels...
- I'm talking about the color...
- You're wrong - look, 1,2,3, 4; 4 wheels!!!

Morphy: it is not true F-15 was air-superiority fighter only; it was used many times in ways F-117 is employed (Libya, Vietnam and so on).

Jack: We didn't have stealth fighters back then.

So what. Sickle cell anemia didn't exist 100 million years ago and so what?

Jack, the sentence above was supposed to show you both HbS and regular Hb have the same function, just like F-117 have and F-15 could have. And because there is F-117 F-15 are no longer employed, although F-117 has some parameters worse by all means, just like sickle cell Hb.

Just because it's more common in some places doesn't mean it's an improvement.

Sure, it is more common because it kills more often. Is this what you're saying???

If you really think the evolution means death of the fittest than I understand why you oppose it.

You're better off without sickle-cell anemia or malaria.
You said there were trade-offs -- that implies design.
I understood your analogy -- I just didn't think it was a very good one.

No, you did not understand what is it all about.

I'll tell you for the last time:
my analogy doesn't have anything to do with ways something was created or designed. It is about RESULT only.

BTW: if this time you say my analogy is bad because airplanes are human made and sickle cell anemia is biological, I won't respond. It's futile to quarrel like kids in a sand box.

 

[aharvey]

She says that she'd rather have nature responsible for diseases than believe in a God that would cause them (basically). It seems that she doesn't consider that there could be a creationist God that does not give people cancer, nor did He create cancer. It looks like Calvinism has struck again! I know you don't hang out in the theology parts of TOL too much, but Calvinism vs Free Will is a pretty big topic here. Its funny that the "caprices of deity" is what she objects too. On that point I'll join her!

Hmm, free will and wasps. I'm not getting the connection, nor is the connection between free will and cancer or plagues immediately apparent. Especially as you next explicitly ruled out the role of Adam and Eve's disobedience in your next post. I won't ask you to reinvent the wheel, could you just point me to a thread that directly discusses these connections?

 

[GuySmiley]

Hmm, free will and wasps. I'm not getting the connection, nor is the connection between free will and cancer or plagues immediately apparent. Especially as you next explicitly ruled out the role of Adam and Eve's disobedience in your next post. I won't ask you to reinvent the wheel, could you just point me to a thread that directly discusses these connections?

I'm sorry I'm not being very clear. In this sentence here, ignore the part about wasp larvae, in fact I'll take it out.

I find it a relief that plagues and cancers . . . are the result of the impartial - and comprehensible - forces of evolution rather than the caprices of a deity.

She is making the conclusion that if a God existed, plagues and cancers would be His fault. So she finds relief that plagues and cancer are the result of impartial forces of evolution. This view of God is the Calvinist view where God has predestined everything, including cancer and plagues. Many of us Christians (non-Calvinists) note that atheists seem to hold that view of God, if they believed in a God.

In opposition to that view is Open Theism: God created us as true free-will beings. What we have chosen to do through sin and poisoning ourselves is not God's will or fault. God allows us free will so that love can truely exist.

Arminianism is sort of a middle ground between the two views, but almost no one on TOL holds that position, except Rob E. Arminianism says God did not plan every detail of the future, but does have foreknowlege about every detail.

For more info, see the Open Theism thread or BR X, and there are tons of other threads also, its a huge topic here if you get away from the science stuff any.

BTW, my original post about this wasn't any sort of rebuttal to you, it was just meant to be a comment on the author's notion of God, if she believed in one.

 

[aharvey]

I'm sorry I'm not being very clear. In this sentence here, ignore the part about wasp larvae, in fact I'll take it out.

She is making the conclusion that if a God existed, plagues and cancers would be His fault. So she finds relief that plagues and cancer are the result of impartial forces of evolution. This view of God is the Calvinist view where God has predestined everything, including cancer and plagues. Many of us Christians (non-Calvinists) note that atheists seem to hold that view of God, if they believed in a God.

Hmm, I'm not sure I completely agree with the exact equating of God being responsible for things we may not appreciate with Calvinism. One can read the Old Testament descriptions of God's motives literally and come away with the conclusion that sometimes He makes it up as He goes along, sometimes He loses His temper, sometimes He does intentionally cause bad things to people (who deserve it, no doubt). That doesn't exact fit Calvinism or a "God is pure love" view, at least to my untrained eye.

Also, I do worry that your excluding the wasp from your thesis amounts to an end run around her central thesis, namely that although humans are uniquely focused on the cancers, plagues, and other afflictions that affect humanity, all living organisms have these exact same trials and tribulations. As (I think) you acknowledged, it's hard to blame these problems on bad choices made by free-thinking humans (and here I'm of course not talking about the various problems that humans do directly cause other organisms today!).

In opposition to that view is Open Theism: God created us as true free-will beings. What we have chosen to do through sin and poisoning ourselves is not God's will or fault. God allows us free will so that love can truely exist.

Arminianism is sort of a middle ground between the two views, but almost no one on TOL holds that position, except Rob E. Arminianism says God did not plan every detail of the future, but does have foreknowlege about every detail.

For more info, see the Open Theism thread or BR X, and there are tons of other threads also, its a huge topic here if you get away from the science stuff any.

BTW, my original post about this wasn't any sort of rebuttal to you, it was just meant to be a comment on the author's notion of God, if she believed in one.

No prob. I didn't take it as such. Likewise, I'm not gearing up for battle, I'm just trying to put this in a logical framework, especially as theology is not my strong suit! Thanks for the info.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik, it's not like you to nitpick, but hey, in the message where you justify your odd contribution to this thread, you don't refer to Johnny's first use, you attribute them to bobb and me.

And I'm surprised that you're continuing to settle on this totally irrelevant part of the discussion and not commenting on the actual issue, which is what the notion of "improvement" (or "advanced", or whatever you want to call it) means when you're comparing organisms at different times in different habitats and niches.

Quite. I allowed myself to get sidetracked.

Anyhow, the idea of improvement in evolution seems self evident. If we are willing to say that humans are not advanced compared to bacteria, then it would seem that improvement and advancement have no meaning.

So here's a question; a wolf like creature turned into a whale. Would the whale be considered more advanced than that wolf-like creature? Or birds more advanced than dinosaurs?

 

[Stratnerd]

Anyhow, the idea of improvement in evolution seems self evident. If we are willing to say that humans are not advanced compared to bacteria, then it would seem that improvement and advancement have no meaning.

So here's a question; a wolf like creature turned into a whale. Would the whale be considered more advanced than that wolf-like creature? Or birds more advanced than dinosaurs?

In general, science likes the terms ancestral and derived, so it boils down to "changed" and "unchanged" and you don't need to worry about baggage-laden words like "advanced"

 

[aharvey]

Quite. I allowed myself to get sidetracked.

Anyhow, the idea of improvement in evolution seems self evident.

I might grant you that, but self evident ideas are quite commonly incorrect.

If we are willing to say that humans are not advanced compared to bacteria, then it would seem that improvement and advancement have no meaning.

Humans might be more different than bacteria from their common ancestor, but if you were to compare modern bacteria to modern humans I'm not sure how you would specify the self evident idea that the humans are more "advanced." Humans are such a loaded example, how about a less emotionally charged comparison, like bacteria and armadillos?

So here's a question; a wolf like creature turned into a whale. Would the whale be considered more advanced than that wolf-like creature? Or birds more advanced than dinosaurs?

In your examples, whales and birds would be more derived than their wolfy and dinosaur ancestors, but as I've already noted, the term "advanced" is too subjective to be relevant here. The whale would certainly seem less advanced than its wolfy ancestor if you were to evaluate its performance on land.

Not that there isn't an interesting notion here. On the one hand, it seems self evident that more advanced forms should have an advantage over their less advanced brethren, right? But we know that the creationist viewpoint is that mutations can only be deleterious, right? So more advanced forms cannot appear as a result of traditional evolutionary processes, right? Thus, it would seem that all advanced forms would have already been present right from the start, with all subsequent evolutionary changes leading to less and less advanced forms, which would presumably be outcompeted by the original more advanced forms.

Well, okay, to me, this seems exactly opposite of how things are most likely to work, but it seems consistent with the processes described by creationists. What do you think?

 

[Yorzhik]

In your examples, whales and birds would be more derived than their wolfy and dinosaur ancestors, but as I've already noted, the term "advanced" is too subjective to be relevant here. The whale would certainly seem less advanced than its wolfy ancestor if you were to evaluate its performance on land.

But whatever was deriving had to have at least a selective advantage, right? And that doesn't translate into a general advantage?

Not that there isn't an interesting notion here. On the one hand, it seems self evident that more advanced forms should have an advantage over their less advanced brethren, right? But we know that the creationist viewpoint is that mutations can only be deleterious, right?

Yes, most likely deleterious. But "most likely" to the point of considered "only".

So more advanced forms cannot appear as a result of traditional evolutionary processes, right?

For the most part, right. Although, for instance, let us say that Secretariat (the famous horse) had a large heart because of a mutation. Assuming that's true (although doubtful), we have an advanced form which by certain definitions can be considered evolution. That is within the creationist view.

Thus, it would seem that all advanced forms would have already been present right from the start, with all subsequent evolutionary changes leading to less and less advanced forms, which would presumably be outcompeted by the original more advanced forms.

Of course the more fit originals, all things being equal, would outcompete the subsequent less fit offspring. However, the subsequent less advanced forms were not always so bad as to be selected out every generation, and the original forms couldn't live forever. And beyond that... all things are not equal. Isn't that obvious?

Well, okay, to me, this seems exactly opposite of how things are most likely to work, but it seems consistent with the processes described by creationists. What do you think?

If it is true that the DNA is breaking down over time, wouldn't it look exactly how we see things in history and recorded today?

 

[Stripe]

how can anyone deny that if evolution is true then it involves massive increases in complexity, intricacy, information and advancement?

HOW!!?

 

[aharvey]

But whatever was deriving had to have at least a selective advantage, right? And that doesn't translate into a general advantage?


Yes, most likely deleterious. But "most likely" to the point of considered "only".


For the most part, right. Although, for instance, let us say that Secretariat (the famous horse) had a large heart because of a mutation. Assuming that's true (although doubtful), we have an advanced form which by certain definitions can be considered evolution. That is within the creationist view.


Of course the more fit originals, all things being equal, would outcompete the subsequent less fit offspring. However, the subsequent less advanced forms were not always so bad as to be selected out every generation, and the original forms couldn't live forever. And beyond that... all things are not equal. Isn't that obvious?


If it is true that the DNA is breaking down over time, wouldn't it look exactly how we see things in history and recorded today?

Sorry, for some reason I didn't get the alert to this reply. I'll try to remember to get to it tomorrow.

 

[aharvey]

Better late than never, I hope (sorry, I don't spend much time in this forum!).

But whatever was deriving had to have at least a selective advantage, right? And that doesn't translate into a general advantage?

Disappointing start, to be sure, but I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean here.

Yes, most likely deleterious. But "most likely" to the point of considered "only".

? So is 999,999 out of 1,000,000 most likely enough to be considered only?

For the most part, right. Although, for instance, let us say that Secretariat (the famous horse) had a large heart because of a mutation. Assuming that's true (although doubtful), we have an advanced form which by certain definitions can be considered evolution. That is within the creationist view.

It's not evolution, though. One individual does not an evolved trait make.

Of course the more fit originals, all things being equal, would outcompete the subsequent less fit offspring. However, the subsequent less advanced forms were not always so bad as to be selected out every generation, and the original forms couldn't live forever.

So what? Unless all of the "more fit original's" offspring had deleterious mutations, then the less fit offspring would lose out to the more fit offspring (unless their mutations were all equally deleterious). Why are you pitting more fit parents against less fit offspring? The conception of selection is based on competition within generations, not across generations (not that parents can't compete with offspring, but that's not the main driving component of selection).

And beyond that... all things are not equal. Isn't that obvious?

Please clarify, in the present context, what these unequal things are that would lead to more fit individuals being outcompeted by less fit individuals. Because, no, that's not obvious to me at all.

If it is true that the DNA is breaking down over time, wouldn't it look exactly how we see things in history and recorded today?

No, I don't think so. As I've noted before, when populations are not under strong selection pressures, the population ecologist will expect exponential growth, and the population geneticist will expect a broader array of genotypes to be able to survive; that is, a greater proportion of "deleterious" alleles will persist. These are the patterns we see in humans over recorded history. We're not seeing these phenomena in wild populations of plants or animals. Deleterious mutations will have a far more difficult time spreading in a normal, stable population under normal selection intensities.

 

[Yorzhik]

But whatever was deriving had to have at least a selective advantage, right? And that doesn't translate into a general advantage?

Disappointing start, to be sure, but I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean here.

I'll re-state.

The organism with an advantage would be selected and their genes would propagate through the population. Thus, wouldn't this selective advantage be translated into a general advantage?

Yes, most likely deleterious. But "most likely" to the point of considered "only".

? So is 999,999 out of 1,000,000 most likely enough to be considered only?

Yes. Consider; you go to a table in Vegas where you gamble at odds where you lose, statistically, 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times. If someone were to say "you only lose at that table", would you tell them "no"? The point being that you could win one time maybe. But in life you have to keep playing, the cells keep reproducing and the mutations keep piling up - you have play at those odds over and over and over. "Only" would be the correct word.

For the most part, right. Although, for instance, let us say that Secretariat (the famous horse) had a large heart because of a mutation. Assuming that's true (although doubtful), we have an advanced form which by certain definitions can be considered evolution. That is within the creationist view.

It's not evolution, though. One individual does not an evolved trait make.

Yes, that is why I said "by certain definitions". I'm just trying to cut down on the evo weasel factor.

Of course the more fit originals, all things being equal, would outcompete the subsequent less fit offspring. However, the subsequent less advanced forms were not always so bad as to be selected out every generation, and the original forms couldn't live forever.

So what? Unless all of the "more fit original's" offspring had deleterious mutations, then the less fit offspring would lose out to the more fit offspring (unless their mutations were all equally deleterious). Why are you pitting more fit parents against less fit offspring? The conception of selection is based on competition within generations, not across generations (not that parents can't compete with offspring, but that's not the main driving component of selection).

The quote I was responding to:

Thus, it would seem that all advanced forms would have already been present right from the start, with all subsequent evolutionary changes leading to less and less advanced forms, which would presumably be outcompeted by the original more advanced forms.

really sounds like it is referring to the parents vs. the children. Which is hypothetically OK. Even so, I still answered the question when I said "less advanced forms were not always so bad as to be selected out every generation". Mutational load will eventually catch up with every group.

And beyond that... all things are not equal. Isn't that obvious?

Please clarify, in the present context, what these unequal things are that would lead to more fit individuals being outcompeted by less fit individuals. Because, no, that's not obvious to me at all.

It should be obvious. Luck and chance happen to us all. The more fit individual will not necessarily survive maybe because they just happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and get struck by lightning. Factors on who survives and who doesn't change so rapidly, that "who is the most fit to survive" can change daily.

If it is true that the DNA is breaking down over time, wouldn't it look exactly how we see things in history and recorded today?

No, I don't think so. As I've noted before, when populations are not under strong selection pressures, the population ecologist will expect exponential growth, and the population geneticist will expect a broader array of genotypes to be able to survive; that is, a greater proportion of "deleterious" alleles will persist. These are the patterns we see in humans over recorded history. We're not seeing these phenomena in wild populations of plants or animals. Deleterious mutations will have a far more difficult time spreading in a normal, stable population under normal selection intensities.

Difficult or not, mutational load will eventually win out in the end in all groups.

 

[aharvey]

I'll re-state.

The organism with an advantage would be selected and their genes would propagate through the population. Thus, wouldn't this selective advantage be translated into a general advantage?

Well, that’s trivial and probably irrelevant. Trivial if all you mean by “general advantage” is “something that allows a gene to spread in a population,” because that’s kinda the definition of “selective advantage.” Irrelevant in that it has no bearing on what I understood to be the original question, in which an individual in a generally superior, generalist ancestor population acquires a mutation that improves its ability to function in one habitat/environment/respect but hurts its ability to function in all others.

Yes. Consider; you go to a table in Vegas where you gamble at odds where you lose, statistically, 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times. If someone were to say "you only lose at that table", would you tell them "no"? The point being that you could win one time maybe. But in life you have to keep playing, the cells keep reproducing and the mutations keep piling up - you have play at those odds over and over and over. "Only" would be the correct word.

Not in an evolutionary sense. Under normal (read environmentally constrained) conditions, each of those 999,999 deleterious mutations would have an extremely slim chance of persisting, whereas that millionth, beneficial, mutation would have a much better chance of persisting. Interesting how easily you reverse your thinking here. A given mutation is “most likely” deleterious, which you equate with “only” deleterious, and yet mutations that are really really “most unlikely” to persist in the face of natural selection (remember, the probability of fixation of a deleterious mutation in the face of selection is by definition very much worse than chance) are not only not impossible, but are a certainty (your appeal to “mutational load”). What’s up with that?

Yes, that is why I said "by certain definitions". I'm just trying to cut down on the evo weasel factor.

Spare me the mirror. I’m long past taking seriously claims of evo weaseling when creationists uniformly invoked it after making sweeping generalizations, baiting-and-switching, etc. I could write a book on logical fallacies entirely illustrated with creationist examples, but who would care?

The quote I was responding to:
really sounds like it is referring to the parents vs. the children.

Really? I was presenting a pretty basic idea. If the original forms were advanced, and modern forms are less so, then somehow the advanced forms had to have been replaced by the less advanced forms. As I mentioned, unless the offspring of advanced forms were all and equally defective, it's not clear how this replacement could happen. Especially the innumerable times you are implying.

Which is hypothetically OK. Even so, I still answered the question when I said "less advanced forms were not always so bad as to be selected out every generation".

That doesn't answer the question at all. For less advanced forms to not only persist, but spread and become fixed, in the population, they would have to be considerably better than "not always so bad."

Mutational load will eventually catch up with every group.

No, see, that’s the assertion you need to be demonstrating. You don’t demonstrate it by repeating it. You’ll do better to avoid borrowing pages from bob b’s playbook. Think selection intensity.

It should be obvious. Luck and chance happen to us all. The more fit individual will not necessarily survive maybe because they just happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and get struck by lightning.

I can’t believe you seriously think the role of chance is not taken into account. Silly us! Look, let’s go back to Vegas for a second. The casinos loudly advertise their favorable odds (at least they used to, haven’t been there in decades), odds far, far, far, far better than those we’re talking about here. "You’ve got a 49.5% chance of winning at keno." And yet, the income pours into the casino with at least the same predictability (and far greater amounts) than it does at your average grocery store. Luck may help, or hurt, one individual, but the law of large numbers is an utterly formidable opponent for a defective genotype in a selective environment.

Factors on who survives and who doesn't change so rapidly, that "who is the most fit to survive" can change daily.

Daily, eh? Don’t you think you’re rather desperately overstating your case?

Difficult or not, mutational load will eventually win out in the end in all groups.

Well, when you feel like defending, rather than merely repeating, this assertion, let me know. And please at least acknowledge that the outcome will likely be different in a selected vs. nonselected population, and as you're doing that take a guess as to which state characterizes most populations most of the time.

 

[bob b]

Not in an evolutionary sense. Under normal (read environmentally constrained) conditions, each of those 999,999 deleterious mutations would have an extremely slim chance of persisting, whereas that millionth, beneficial, mutation would have a much better chance of persisting.

The faith of an evolutionist is a marvel to behold.

With faith like that who needs a brain?

 

[Johnny]

With faith like that who needs a brain?

Irony, thou art cruel!

 

[aharvey]

Originally Posted by aharvey

Not in an evolutionary sense. Under normal (read environmentally constrained) conditions, each of those 999,999 deleterious mutations would have an extremely slim chance of persisting, whereas that millionth, beneficial, mutation would have a much better chance of persisting.

The faith of an evolutionist is a marvel to behold.

With faith like that who needs a brain?

Ah, so you disagree, eh? Could you clarify where your disagreement is with my quoted statement?

Do you deny that the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial, in fact are probably deleterious?

Do you deny that deleterious mutations would have trouble getting established in a normal population?

Do you deny that beneficial mutations would have a better chance than deleterious mutations at getting established in a normal population?

That's it, that's the entire content of that quote. So which is it, bob? Which of these so flies in the face of logic and evidence that one would need brainless faith to believe them? Or did you just feel compelled to say something insulting? Or will you try to claim that your slur actually referred to some other quote than the one you used?

Actually, I've been wondering when you'd weigh in on this thread, if for no other reason than to point out to Yorzhik that given the extreme difficulty you think even beneficial mutations have getting established (remember your strange devotion to Haldane's "dilemma"?), there's no real chance for deleterious mutations to accumulate fast enough to compromise the genome of an entire species.

 

[bob b]

Ah, so you disagree, eh? Could you clarify where your disagreement is with my quoted statement?

Do you deny that the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial, in fact are probably deleterious?

Do you deny that deleterious mutations would have trouble getting established in a normal population?

Do you deny that beneficial mutations would have a better chance than deleterious mutations at getting established in a normal population?

That's it, that's the entire content of that quote. So which is it, bob? Which of these so flies in the face of logic and evidence that one would need brainless faith to believe them? Or did you just feel compelled to say something insulting? Or will you try to claim that your slur actually referred to some other quote than the one you used?

Actually, I've been wondering when you'd weigh in on this thread, if for no other reason than to point out to Yorzhik that given the extreme difficulty you think even beneficial mutations have getting established (remember your strange devotion to Haldane's "dilemma"?), there's no real chance for deleterious mutations to accumulate fast enough to compromise the genome of an entire species.

"The fact that the majority of mutants, including those having a slight advantage, are lost by chance is important in considering the problem of evolution by mutation, since the overwhelming majority of advantageous mutations are likely to have only a slightly advantageous effect ..."

 

[aharvey]

"The fact that the majority of mutants, including those having a slight advantage, are lost by chance is important in considering the problem of evolution by mutation, since the overwhelming majority of advantageous mutations are likely to have only a slightly advantageous effect ..."

So, as I suspected, your "brainless faith" crack did not have to do with anything I said in the quote that supposedly triggered your remark. Typical.

But what does this unacknowledged remark tell us about the larger topic at hand? It rather baldly suggests that the effects of genetic drift are "overwhelmingly" stronger than those of selection. You can guess how consistent that is with available evidence!

 

[bob b]

So, as I suspected, your "brainless faith" crack did not have to do with anything I said in the quote that supposedly triggered your remark. Typical.

But what does this unacknowledged remark tell us about the larger topic at hand? It rather baldly suggests that the effects of genetic drift are "overwhelmingly" stronger than those of selection. You can guess how consistent that is with available evidence!

Your "remark", which triggered my negative comment, was:

"Under normal (read environmentally constrained) conditions, each of those 999,999 deleterious mutations would have an extremely slim chance of persisting, whereas that millionth, beneficial, mutation would have a much better chance of persisting."

This statement implies the usual naive assumption that evolutionary progress is inevitable, but the odds in this particular case would probably more likely favor an inevitable genomic deterioration that would lead to extinction. Hence my negative comment.