Casinos in Tunica, Mississippi – List & Map

Ok, so roughly speaking if 99% of mutation are deleterious, and 1% are beneficial, that's not so good.
But if 99% of that measly 1% of beneficials are themselves function loss, well that means 1% of %1 of all mutations might be a gain of function.
1% x 1% = 0.01%
And these numbers are generous by the way.
But, the problems don't end there. If 99% of the time the "beneficial" is a loss of function or reduction of genome and selection favors that reduction 99% of the time, that means you're like playing in a really bad casino where you lose 99% of the time and win only 1% of the time.
So ok, you gain a little bit better running ability, but then you get damage to the kidney, eyes, ears, intestine, lungs, testicles, fingers, brain, immune system, spine, pancreas, liver, bones, nails.... that wouldn't be a good track record for natural selection would it?
We do get a little picture of this in the Spiegelman Monster, which Darwinists hailed as vindication of their theory. Ironically it illustrated Behe's point so well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman%27s_Monster

Spiegelman introduced RNA from a simple bacteriophage Qβ (Qβ) into a solution which contained Qβ's RNA replicase, some free nucleotides, and some salts. In this environment, the RNA started to be replicated.[1][2] After a while, Spiegelman took some RNA and moved it to another tube with fresh solution. This process was repeated.[3]
Shorter RNA chains were able to be replicated faster, so the RNA became shorter and shorter as selection favored speed. After 74 generations, the original strand with 4,500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 218 bases.

Of course you can argue over this particular experiment but you can't argue over the fact Lenski's experiments made more dysfunction than function -- that and numerous other experiments.
Reminds me of the casino world and a certain patron I met.
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/the-price-of-cherry-picking-for-addicted-gamblers-and-believers-in-darwinism/

One evening at the Fitz Tunica casino, a lady playing blackjack at my table confided to me, “I’ve lost $500,000 playing blackjack. The entire inheritance my father left me,”. Her bankruptcy is like the bankruptcy of Darwinism.
Jane’s eyes beamed as if she had just seen angels, “Yes! I’d do it over again. The fun was like nothing I’d ever known betting $500 a hand.”
Her story is not unique. Dealers tell me of patrons losing hundreds of thousands. One lady won $2,000,000 in a slot machine and then lost it all and went bankrupt. Then we have the high profile types in the news: Philadelphia Eagle’s owner Leonard Tose who lost $50,000,000 at the blackjack tables, Fry Electronics VP Omar Siddiqui who lost $120,000,000 in blackjack and baccarat, and heir of Oriental Trading Company Terrance Watanabe who lost $127,000,000 at the blackjack tables and slot machines.
At first I was reluctant to reveal in another thread, my somewhat checkered past in the casinos, but so many lessons in math and life were learned in those experiences. I also realized the gambling anecdotes would help spice up rather dry formalities of the ID discussion, and so I felt it was time to come out of the closet on those activities, because there are so many tales to tell that provide a unique perspective on the Darwin vs. Design debate.
These tales illustrate how people can be enamored with cherry picked data. Their brains enjoy the thrill of winning and somehow erase memories of their losses until it’s too late. Such are people with gambling problems, and such are those addicted to cherry picking data in defense of Darwinism.
So what does it take to lose $500,000 in playing blackjack? A Basic Strategy player at first has a fighting chance because her approximate disadvantage to the house (the casino) is a mere 0.5% per hand. With such a disadvantage a player like Jane can have a phenomenal run of luck lasting thousands of hands. Using CVCX software, I calculated if Jane had one standard deviation of good luck, she could ride good luck for 5000 hands and still be a winner. But over time, the casino’s house edge will slowly grind her into the ground.
What is the average number of hands needed for the casino to fleece her? Assuming she is betting an average of $500 a hand:

$500,000 / ($500 per hand * 0.5% ) = 200,000 hands

Playing 100 hands an hour, half a million dollars bought Jane 2,000 hours of “fun”. I tried to explain the math to friends and family members and tell them, “stay away from the casinos, especially slot machines — they have a 9% house edge.” Instead they persist in their delusional views.
Like Jane they relate stories of the money they won and almost forget the money they lost, but I know and the casinos know this tendency toward delusion. Were these people uneducated? No! One was an MBA in finance. I wanted to smack him and say, “of all people you should know, you can’t beat the games the way you’re playing.” Another was a PhD electrical engineering student at Urbana-Champaign. But the commitment to delusion is too powerful — expectation values, statistics, truth takes second place to what you want to believe. Reminds me of those who proudly exclaim, “we create our own meaning.”
Maybe their only reasonable hope of success is betting on the lottery, progressive jackpots, or multiverses. But those aren’t rational bets based on expectation, but rather desperation.
So Jane wins $500 on one hand and then loses $500 the next. The process goes on with glorious win streaks followed by miserable losing streaks, but all the while the house slowly fleeces the life out of Jane through the law of large numbers and casino expected value of 0.5%. The outcome is gambler’s ruin. If she had an accountant looking over her shoulder while she played the accounting would look on average something like this:

Wins: 49,750,000
Losses: 50,250,000
Net: -500,000

So I asked Darwinists a related question, how many net (animal) species a year are emerging via natural selection vs how many lost? I count a new species as a win, and lost species as a loss:

Wins: 0
Losses: thousands
Net: -thousands

That's reality vs. Darwinism.