Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    more succinctly:

    That about sums it up.

    I would type up a response to GRH, but it's just a waste of time and energy. I'll save a few pages of thread:

    Me: Refutation

    GRH: That's wrong. You're just quoting dogma that fits your worldview. I am not quoting dogma, of course. I just support something also supported by Answers in Genesis, that's all. You like fake science. MY science is real. You're a moron.

    rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.

    I'm done. Go Pacers.

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
      Any test that validates that biology is design-free will falsify biology being designed.
      Any test that validates that biology is designed will falsify biology being design-free.

      Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. You can't reasonably say that no design is testable/provable/falsifiable while saying that design isn't testable/provable/falsifiable, yet this is exactly what people like Aw Heck (including many academics and scientists) do. It's nuttiness.
      Any test that validates that the earth is globe-shaped falsify the earth being flat.
      Any test that validates the earth being flat will falsify that the earth is globe-shaped.

      Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. ....yet this is exactly what people like
      Henry the Navigator (including many academics and scientists and cartographers) do. It's nuttiness.

      Flawless logic FTW.

      The logic shows that one or the other can be true, but not both....all I'm saying.
      Last edited by kester99; 05-06-2013, 05:24 PM.


      [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        Why do embryonic whales have limb buds that resemble the embryonic forms of mammalian legs?

        Why so whale flippers have the internal structure of mammalian hands?



        why do embyonic whales have facial hair?

        Why do they have a vestigial pelvis?


        ---
        These are just many simple-to-understand natural consequences of macroevolution occurring, as land mammals gave rise to new species of aquatic descendants over eons of time.

        Of course in chapter 14 of Origin of Species, Darwin predicted that such conservation of structures and traits would be found, like our tailbones which remain from our tree-dwelling ancestors, our wisdom teeth and appendix that remain from our herbivore past, and numerous other examples found all over the animal kingdom, even at the molecular level.
        What's the thinking behind the pace of such changes? Why are whales still whales but we're humans? Is the theory that their lives developed much later on than ours, so they're behind our curve? Are whales then projected to evolve into land dwellers in X billion years?

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          more succinctly:

          Well, gee, with such a well thought out, elaborate, point by point refutation like this, how could anyone possibly still assume GRH is onto something?

          This was a really weak choice for a response IMO. It makes it look like you have no arguments left.

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by kester99 View Post
            Any test that validates that the earth is globe-shaped falsify the earth being flat.
            Any test that validates the earth being flat will falsify that the earth is globe-shaped.

            Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. ....yet this is exactly what people like
            Henry the Navigator (including many academics and scientists and cartographers) do. It's nuttiness.

            Flawless logic FTW.

            The logic shows that one or the other can be true, but not both....all I'm saying.
            I'm not sure I understand this; are you disagreeing with this logic? As I see it, science is a tool for obtaining knowledge, not the actual knowledge itself, therefore whenever you apply the tool towards deciding an either/or scenario (world flat, world round), inevitably if done correctly it's going to support one and falsify the other, right? What's wrong with that?

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              You have an organism that's been subjected to 10,000 mutations, 9,995 of them neutral, 4 harmful, and 1 beneficial.

              That's more in line with reality.

              Every once in a great while a beneficial trait emerges. If it's a real doozy and gives a survival advantage, then of course it becomes dominant, often in only a few dozen generations.

              We see such survival mutations happening all the time even on our timescale of almost nothing. A species of yellow butterfly has a mutation to make a brown version, but the brown version isn't recognized by a predator for whatever reason (maybe it lives near a sooty factory?),

              then a few dozens of generations later later you just have oldtimers showing you yellow butterflies they captured when they were kids, but having the same genome as a whole species / population of living brown butterflies that were descended from them.
              Is there online documentation that sums up how many of a given '10,000' mutations are good, neutral, or bad? And are the neutral ones actually neutral, or just close-but-technically-a-teeny-tiny-bit-bad/good?

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                How can a mutation a gene that is never transcribed be harmful in the least?

                If you have a collection of 1,000 cookbooks with 990 of them boxed up and in storage, while you use the other ten, how can me changing a line in one of the recipes in the 990 books in storage affect your cooking? It just can't.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Is there online documentation that sums up how many of a given '10,000' mutations are good, neutral, or bad? And are the neutral ones actually neutral, or just close-but-technically-a-teeny-tiny-bit-bad/good?
                  sort of...

                  about 98% of our DNA codes for nothing


                  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...68952508001510

                  thus it is difficult to presume what negative effects a mutation in any part of that 98% could have, unless the odd case of a mutation creating a new binding pocket for something like a heavy metal or other environmental toxin that could prevent your DNA from being properly packaged. Of course a mutation could just as well more greatly disfavor such an interaction also.


                  If you mutate in the 2% that does code for proteins that are made at some point in your life, you may also not change the protein transcribed if a redundant codon is still read or you have a benign insertion or deletion, so 2% being harmful is a big overestimate, most likely. Supporting this is that diagnostic tests for the presence of certain proteins in your blood aim to detect often dozens of naturally mutated forms, all of which are functional in different individuals.
                  Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-06-2013, 06:41 PM.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    How can a mutation a gene that is never transcribed be harmful in the least?

                    If you have a collection of 1,000 cookbooks with 990 of them boxed up and in storage, while you use the other ten, how can me changing a line in one of the recipes in the 990 books in storage affect your cooking? It just can't.

                    It's not. He's 100% wrong.

                    You change a DNA sequence in an intron sequence, nothing happens. It doesn't matter because it DOES NOT GET TRANSCRIBED. So no, there's no harm. It happens all the freaking time. Just saying.
                    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post

                      You might as well. I mean, you hold a silly, archaic view of biology, so you might as well hold a silly, archaic view of geology, too.
                      I really don't know how to respond to this. I can't really take anything you say seriously.

                      ID is just one of the dumbest things I've heard. It's not science, and while science doesn't explain everything, it sure as hell makes a lot more sense. You know, logic.
                      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        I'm not sure I understand this; are you disagreeing with this logic? As I see it, science is a tool for obtaining knowledge, not the actual knowledge itself, therefore whenever you apply the tool towards deciding an either/or scenario (world flat, world round), inevitably if done correctly it's going to support one and falsify the other, right? What's wrong with that?
                        Nothing. He said that the 'flawless logic' proved that either both ideas were science, or that neither were.

                        "Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground."


                        I'm saying that is an obvious misinterpretation of the dynamic relationship he cites:

                        Thus, if one isn't testable, then neither is the other. You can't test for one without testing for the other; it's logically impossible. Any test that will strengthen one will weaken the other.

                        Any test that strengthens the idea that biology is design free will weaken the idea that biology is designed.
                        Any test that strengthens the idea that biology is designed will weaken the idea that biology is design-free.

                        Any test that validates that biology is design-free will falsify biology being designed.
                        Any test that validates that biology is designed will falsify biology being design-free.

                        OK. But then he concludes that both must be science or neither....when in fact what it (obviously) shows is that they are mutually exclusive. As if to say "Any test that proves 4+4=8 tends to disprove that 4+4=5, and vice versa, so they both are right or they both are wrong."


                        [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          Yeah...one of them actually requires evidence....


                          Remind me again what logic and reason was used to write the bible?
                          Remind me again who first hand witnessed the evolutionary process? You brought up that it wasn't observed as a point, so stand by your point instead of resorting to mockery like on the elementary playground.





                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          Why do embryonic whales have limb buds that resemble the embryonic forms of mammalian legs?

                          Why so whale flippers have the internal structure of mammalian hands?



                          why do embyonic whales have facial hair?

                          Why do they have a vestigial pelvis?


                          ---
                          These are just many simple-to-understand natural consequences of macroevolution occurring, as land mammals gave rise to new species of aquatic descendants over eons of time.

                          Of course in chapter 14 of Origin of Species, Darwin predicted that such conservation of structures and traits would be found, like our tailbones which remain from our tree-dwelling ancestors, our wisdom teeth and appendix that remain from our herbivore past, and numerous other examples found all over the animal kingdom, even at the molecular level.
                          So are you suggesting that the only answer is because they share a common ancestor? There isn't a single reason other, than a common ancestor that is possible?

                          Where is the fossil record of our tail progressively getting shorter? Or are we to believe that our tails just one day up and fell off?

                          If you believe in ID, the answer could just very well be that's how that animal was designed. What evidence is there that the whale flippers look like human hands because we share a common ancestor, other than reaching that conclusion by just looking at the structures?
                          Last edited by Since86; 05-06-2013, 07:21 PM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            I find it quite self serving to suggest that we share common ancestors, because we share similar physical traits. If similar physical traits suggest common ancestory, then why don't dissimilar traits suggest that we don't?
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                              If you want to remain in the dark about what's up for debate, watch the PBS documentary. If you're prefer to be educated on the subject, and want to know the actual I.D. arguments from I.D. proponents themselves, read the following articles:


                              Better yet, do what I do and make the entire Evolution News & Views blog a regular stop. It's brilliant; name any anti-I.D. claim and it's very likely already refuted it with facts and flawless logic.
                              Here's my problem with the whole intelligent design movement: 90% of those articles you linked and that evolution news blog are focused on discrediting and exposing the incompleteness of evolution theory. Where is the argument for ID? It is claimed to be a scientific theory, but where is the evidence? Disproving one theory does not prove the other.

                              Notice I said ID movement, not the theory. I'm ok with the theory, but the people behind it and the 'movement' are going about it totally in the wrong way. This includes your posts in this thread, you keep promising to give us more substance, but all you've done is try to discredit evolution theory.

                              This is one of the few things I read in your links that actually argued for ID:

                              Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?

                              Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a fourstep process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
                              This is the most basic premise of ID, but it is a logical fallacy: Affirming the Consequent

                              1. If P, then Q.
                              2. Q.
                              3. Therefore, P.
                              If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
                              I have a sore throat.
                              Therefore, I have the flu.
                              1. If a natural object is designed (by an intelligent agent), then it will contain complex and specified information.
                              2. Life is complex and specified
                              3. Therefore life was produced by an intelligent agent.

                              It's a fallacy. Just because intelligent agents have the ability to produce complex and specified information does not lead to the conclusion that all complex and specified information was produced by intelligent agents.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Is there online documentation that sums up how many of a given '10,000' mutations are good, neutral, or bad? And are the neutral ones actually neutral, or just close-but-technically-a-teeny-tiny-bit-bad/good?
                                I've Googled the question and it appears there is no concrete answer. I've seen figures as high as 1,000,000:1, which is just shocking. The take-home point is that beneficial mutations are so exceedingly rare that no one can pinpoint an exact ratio. That's telling.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X