Especially because of natural selection. Selection will not allow random non-beneficial steps to accumulate towards a future benefit.
That is just false.
There's nothing in natural selection that pushes towards eliminating neutral mutations.
Why do you think are they called "neutral"? Neutral in context of what? Could it perhaps be selection pressures / fitness? Hmm?
Irrelevant, such mutations are neither new functions nor new genes and will never be.
Those mutations are mostly neutral mutations that potentially play a part in future phenotype changes in combination with other mutations.
You should read up a bit.
And also, it's moving the goalpost. I was responding to your silly claim that there is "no mechanism" that keeps neutral mutations present in the genepool.
Reproduction, does exactly that.
You fail to understand that the new function is the end product of numerous constituents that are not functional.
I understand that very well. The failings to understand seems to be entirely on your end.
If these constituents are not allowed (selection should eliminate it), the function is not possible.
Again, this is the root of your mistake.
You think selection will actively try and eliminate neutral mutations. This is simply not true.
They are NEUTRAL. Meaning that they don't affect selection processes at all. They are not subject to selection pressures in any sense.
Whatever selection does with the dna these mutations are on, will depend on
other factors, as the mutations themselves are neutral
Do you mean that mutations are harmful only 99.9% of the time?
No, that seemed to be what you were implying.
The vast majority of mutations are in fact neutral.
But no, this not how it works. The problem is that you cannot understand the difference between DNA replication errors, i.e., random mutations and directed mutation, i.e., adaptation.
Your wording reveals your ignorance on the theory.
There's no such thing as "directed mutations = adaption" and "other mutations = errors".
Mutations are mutations. They are random with respect to fitness.
Some will be harmful, some will be beneficial, most will be neutral (ie: no effect on phenotype, which selection pressures act on)
Pathetic.
That is intelligent purposeful programming for a goal.
No, it's not. If it were, then the picture would be final in generation 1.
What that is, is a (simplistic) genetic algorithm.
The "goal" of mona lisa is just the defining of selection pressures.
The end result is achieved by starting with a random string of coordinates and colors for max 50 polygons, which is randomly mutated slightly every generation. Top performers (= those matching the selection criteria best) then get to reproduce.
That's exactly what evolution does.
This is exactly what you claimed can't happen with your "the blind can't create mona lisa".
Off course, that claims also hides a bit of a strawman, since evolution isn't exactly "blind"....
Selection pressures acts like a filter which inevitably leads to ever-more optimalization.
You're not interested in learning, are you?
