nonrandom mutations...

[David Brown]

On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:52:11 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 01/02/2022 16:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:22:29 +0000, Jeff Layman


According to <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria>, in 2017
there were 219 million cases of malaria globally, leading to 435,000
deaths. In other words, a death rate of about 0.2%. According to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease>, in 2015 the death
rate from sickle cell disease was about 2.6% (114,800 in 4.4 million
cases). Figures vary according to the source, but overall it appears
that the death rate from sickle cell disease is about 10 times that of
malaria. So although it might help to stop you dying from malaria, you
are more likely to die from other causes.

I was surprised by these figures, and would be pleased to find I\'ve got
them wrong and sickle-cell disease really does result in a lower death
rate than malaria.

One copy of the sicle gene is advantageous against malaria. That means
it benefits many people without causing illness.

If that were not so, the sickle gene would be eliminated by evolution.


Yes, just as the gene mutations for short-sightedness have been
eliminated by evolution since they have no benefits but cause problems.

I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.

Oh, wait, it turns out that evolution is not quite that simple. Perhaps
there isn\'t a \"guiding intelligence\" after all?

Evolution has complex interactions. It is /not/ \"survival of the
fittest\". Natural selection selecting particular advantageous traits
works faster than for deselecting disadvantageous traits (this is a
result of the randomness and selection pressure).

Now, it might well be that the benefits of a single copy of the sickle
gene outweigh the disadvantages of having two copies - I don\'t know the
figures. But it is most certainly not guaranteed by evolution. Nor is
there the remotest guarantee that the sickle gene mutation is the \"best\"
solution - it could just as well be the case that a different mutation
would have given better protection against malaria with fewer
side-effects, but random chance has given people this one.

You can argue with Wikipedia on that one. Maybe it\'s a coincidence
that the sickle gene is common in places with mlaria.

What, exactly, do you think I wrote that contradicts Wikipedias pages
here? Either you misread me, or you misread Wikipedia, or you failed to
put two and two together here.

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snipped>

I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[server]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:10:35 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:52:11 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 01/02/2022 16:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:22:29 +0000, Jeff Layman


According to <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria>, in 2017
there were 219 million cases of malaria globally, leading to 435,000
deaths. In other words, a death rate of about 0.2%. According to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease>, in 2015 the death
rate from sickle cell disease was about 2.6% (114,800 in 4.4 million
cases). Figures vary according to the source, but overall it appears
that the death rate from sickle cell disease is about 10 times that of
malaria. So although it might help to stop you dying from malaria, you
are more likely to die from other causes.

I was surprised by these figures, and would be pleased to find I\'ve got
them wrong and sickle-cell disease really does result in a lower death
rate than malaria.

One copy of the sicle gene is advantageous against malaria. That means
it benefits many people without causing illness.

If that were not so, the sickle gene would be eliminated by evolution.


Yes, just as the gene mutations for short-sightedness have been
eliminated by evolution since they have no benefits but cause problems.

I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.

I have to read things and do close-up work for my wife. She\'s helpless
with that sort of thing without her glasses.

Of course being close-focused is better for close work. Nobody has
\"perfect\" vision.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:20:20 +0000, Clive Arthur
<clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snipped


I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.

I do the same thing. When I had surgery for cataracts, I had the
choice of the distance which would be in focus without glasses. Most
people choose infinity, and wear glasses for close up. I chose the
opposite, clear focus at 15 to 20 inches, need glasses for distance.
Serves me well.

Joe Gwinn

 

[legg]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:25:50 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101

This makes sense. If it\'s not impossible and it\'s beneficial,
evolution will do it.

... . . or not.

Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.

RL

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:59:56 PM UTC-5, legg wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:25:50 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101

This makes sense. If it\'s not impossible and it\'s beneficial,
evolution will do it.
.. . . or not.

There\'s one other requirement for evolution. To get from A to B often requires many changes to the genome. The likelihood of more than one happening at a time is very slight indeed each change has to be survivable, or maybe even more than that, in no way a detriment. Since the multiple changes are most likely not to happen close in time, any mutation that reduces the chances of survival will likely be eliminated from the gene pool. So each step must be at least in no way harmful. Then the multiple steps can happen, spread over time with the combination finally happening by chance, giving a large improvement.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 02:28:31 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/02/22 04:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101

This makes sense. If it\'s not impossible and it\'s beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.

The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.

In that case, judging from the results, it is a very poor
intelligence!

You don\'t like trees or bees or yourself?

As others have noted, you really don\'t understand
evolution.

Or they don\'t.


You need to understand the distinction between \"sufficient\"
and \"necessary\".

Random mutation is sufficient but not necessary. Any form
of mutation is sufficient, e.g. copying error, cosmic ray,
etc etc.

Given two competing species, one with sufficient genetic mechanisms
and one with better mechanisms, the better one wins and the sufficient
becomes extinct.

Generally true.


>Randomness is a second-rate design technique. Intelligence is better.

Actually, not relevant. The point of evolutionary theory is that
randomness is sufficient, and intelligence is not required.


>The insistance that changes to the genome must be random, is weird.

There is no such requirement in evolutionary theory. In fact, far
more is done by the million monkeys madly cutting and pasting. This
was discussed at length here in March-April 2021 in the S.E.D. thread
\"cool book\".

Viruses deliberately redesign our genome to their benefit. Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

Viruses do not possess a nervous system, never mind a brain, so cannot
be deliberate. They just randomly poke until they find a chink in the
armor. And the host randomly pokes back. Forever.

Just to muddy the picture, it turns out that the rate of random poking
is under genetic control, and many microscopic critters will increase
the rate when under lethal stress. In one to few cell critters, this
is often achieved by choosing a sloppier RNA or DNA copy mechanism, or
by suppressing various error repair mechanisms. But there is no
agency there - one of those many pokes resulted in the temporary
switch to fast and sloppy, and more critters with that algorithm
survived than those without.

Joe Gwinn

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 3:00:14 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The point wasn\'t that there was more selection in malarial places, but
the the related mutation rates are higher.

As it says in the headline, this is directly contrary to the dogma of
neo-Darwinism, specifically that mutations are only random.

First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn\'t relate to \'dogma\' which
would clearly not be part of any science. Second, \'neo-Darwinism\' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone
except themselves.

Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules
are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn\'t invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.

 

[Phil Allison]

whitless IDIOT puked:
==================

First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn\'t relate to \'dogma\' which
would clearly not be part of any science. Second, \'neo-Darwinism\' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone
except themselves.

Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules
are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn\'t invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.

** Just add a little vinegar and olive oil, plus a sprinkle of black pepper -
and you will have a perfect word salad.



......... Phil

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 4:52:28 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:

whitless IDIOT puked:
==================

First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn\'t relate to \'dogma\' which
would clearly not be part of any science. Second, \'neo-Darwinism\' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone
except themselves.

Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules
are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn\'t invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.

** Just add a little vinegar and olive oil, plus a sprinkle of black pepper -
and you will have a perfect word salad.

You\'ve got to add under-informed Phil to the mix to make it a word salad. Better -informed people can understand what he was saying even if Phil struggles.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Brown]

On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snipped


I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not.  Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away.  It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids.  It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.

Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
\"near-sighted\" - it is simply \"not far-sighted\". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn\'t mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.

(The majority of people, of course, do not have perfect vision.)

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 02/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:

On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snipped


I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not.  Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away.  It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids.  It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.


Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
\"near-sighted\" - it is simply \"not far-sighted\". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn\'t mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.

(The majority of people, of course, do not have perfect vision.)

Being quite myopic (near/short sighted) means my \'natural\' relaxed focus
is about 100mm or 4\" from my eyes. That means I can look at close
things for as long as I like without strain, though I do have to close
one eye.

If I use both eyes, there\'s considerable strain pointing them both to
the same place, and that is what someone without myopia would
experience. I don\'t claim to see close things \'better\' in the sense of
visual acuity, just very much more easily and comfortably.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Phil Allison]

IEEE, ASD FUCKED Bill - bill....@ieee.org wrote:
======================================-

** Be a huge embarrassment to his group - if the other shits were not all same.

First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn\'t relate to \'dogma\' which
would clearly not be part of any science. Second, \'neo-Darwinism\' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone
except themselves.

Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules
are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn\'t invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.

** Just add a little vinegar and olive oil, plus a sprinkle of black pepper -
and you will have a perfect word salad.

You\'ve got to add under-informed Phil to the mix to make it a word salad.

** LOL - it\'s a fucking WORD SALAD you dumb asshole !!!

Phrase after phrase, continuously self referencing and riddled with ambiguity.
From a life long, raving nut case troll.

PEEEEEEIUUUKEEEEE...............


> Better -informed people ....

** Leaves YOU 100% out - you stinking, geriatric PILE OF SHIT !!

Get Covid and fucking DIE.



....... Phil

 

[Martin Brown]

On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct
functioning gene can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to
correct a problem but without altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

Nobel Prize in 2012 went to the guy who did this work.

Cystic fibrosis is another genetic disease where an inhaler based gene
editing repair looks to be possible and effective in the near future:

https://www.cff.org/research-clinical-trials/gene-editing-cystic-fibrosis

There is a certain reluctance to gene edit embryos to create super
intelligent athletic designer babies for the hyper rich elite. SciFi
dystopias are full of such offspring causing trouble for mere humans.

Too many things can go wrong - we do it to livestock and laboratory
animals though. ISTR a rogue Chinese scientist has done it to one or
more human embryos and was pilloried for it inside and outside China.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00001-y

He served a jail term for his unauthorised and unethical use of CRISPR
in this fashion. His announcement stunned the world in 2018.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:

On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

Nobel Prize in 2012 went to the guy who did this work.

Cystic fibrosis is another genetic disease where an inhaler based gene editing
repair looks to be possible and effective in the near future:

https://www.cff.org/research-clinical-trials/gene-editing-cystic-fibrosis

There is a certain reluctance to gene edit embryos to create super intelligent
athletic designer babies for the hyper rich elite. SciFi dystopias are full of
such offspring causing trouble for mere humans.

Too many things can go wrong - we do it to livestock and laboratory animals
though. ISTR a rogue Chinese scientist has done it to one or more human embryos
and was pilloried for it inside and outside China.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00001-y

He served a jail term for his unauthorised and unethical use of CRISPR in this
fashion. His announcement stunned the world in 2018.

I remember that case. I don\'t count it as \"... to our benefit\",
since that is unproven.

Nonetheless, I take your points.

 

[David Brown]

On 02/02/2022 10:24, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 02/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snipped


I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not.  Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away.  It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids.  It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.


Being able to see well close-up is useful.  But that is not
\"near-sighted\" - it is simply \"not far-sighted\".  Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn\'t mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.

(The majority of people, of course, do not have perfect vision.)

Being quite myopic (near/short sighted) means my \'natural\' relaxed focus
is about 100mm or 4\" from my eyes.  That means I can look at close
things for as long as I like without strain, though I do have to close
one eye.

If I use both eyes, there\'s considerable strain pointing them both to
the same place, and that is what someone without myopia would
experience.  I don\'t claim to see close things \'better\' in the sense of
visual acuity, just very much more easily and comfortably.

That\'s not unreasonable. There\'s a big difference between claiming or
believing that a near-sighted person can see /better/ - more accurately,
finer detail, better focus - and saying you can look closer for longer
with less strain.

In modern society, being near-sighted or far-sighted is not much of a
problem. It doesn\'t really make a huge difference if you need to wear
glasses (or contact lenses) to read, watch TV, or whatever. But being
near-sighted is not an overall advantage, even for an electronics
engineer - you rarely have to spend a long enough time staring at small
details for strain to be a problem. On the other hand, without glasses
you\'d quickly have a problem with driving (or if you are as near-sighted
as I am, walking about the office would be dangerous without glasses or
lenses!). If anyone says they are glad they are short-sighted and not
normal sighted, you would not believe them.

While human evolution is continuous and thus has gradually adapted since
we started living in settled societies, it usually makes sense to
consider hunter-gatherer lifestyles on the plains of Africa when talking
about evolutionary advantages. It only takes a quick look at a berry or
mushroom to determine if it is safe to eat - but you need to stare at
the horizon for hours looking for prey and predators. Near-sightedness
is clearly a major disadvantage - not a balance or something with pros
and cons, such as the sickle-cell gene. It is a genetic mistake, and
one of countless examples of how we know there is no \"intelligence\"
behind our \"design\". (Myopia is not a single genetic fault, and there
are environmental influences too, but the genetic components are vital.)

If evolution worked \"intelligently\", and moved steadily towards evolving
useful traits and removing bad traits, as some people here seem to
believe, we would have no myopia.

 

[server]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.


[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:52:25 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

whitless IDIOT puked:
==================

First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn\'t relate to \'dogma\' which
would clearly not be part of any science. Second, \'neo-Darwinism\' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone
except themselves.

Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules
are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn\'t invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.


** Just add a little vinegar and olive oil, plus a sprinkle of black pepper -
and you will have a perfect word salad.



........ Phil

A bit of maple syrup is great in salad dressing. And some fine chopped
garlic.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:20:20 +0000, Clive Arthur
<clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snipped


I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.

Accommodation is reduced as one ages. It goes to zero after the usual
cataract surgery. At that point, you get to pick your focal lengths. I
went for 8\" and 20\".



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.