No CTD it is not common knowledge. Your assumptions regarding "harmful" and "beneficial" mutations have a few problems.
That which you call "assumption" is a large body of commonly-known observations, backed up by experimental science.
In all the mutant fruit fly experiments, how many beneficial mutations were produced? How many harmful?
In all of human medical science, and animal veterinary science, how many harmful mutations are known? How many beneficial?
One must be careful how one writes the ratio, lest one commit the error of dividing by zero.
But what's next? Will you ask me to define 'fruit fly'? Then turn around and tell me I'm not qualified unless I have a doctorate in entomology? I do lack formal entomology training, but I still know my evolutionology. And even a rank amateur should be able to recognize patterns after a few dozen times.
1. The words can be and are ambiguous without context or definition.
None of my words lack either. I told you I'm using classical English, and the context in which I use the terms is pretty hard to miss.
2. You totally ignore neutral mutations.
I ignore lots of things. I totally ignore I.Q. estimates for chimpanzees and dolphins. What of it?
3. You claim a ratio that you are not supporting from any scientific journals, papers or books.
I claim such a ridiculously high ratio of beneficial mutations to harmful that no evolutionist in his right mind would object. ...unless he just couldn't think of anything better...
Think of it, people. Think of it. If beneficial mutations were as common as the number I used, think how many members of your class in school would've been walking around with them! Yet they are unknown in the real world, in spite of obscene amounts of money and time invested in trying to find one.
All they have is a pitiful handful of dubious claims that always rely on playing word games. "Well, if we use
this definition of 'beneficial mutation' we can say this is one." If you let me play games with terms, I can show you the moon is purple. Even so, we don't have to restrict the scenario to reality to see that it doesn't work. It cannot work. Not if one actually thinks about it, instead of taking someone's word.
The Google results you provided only supplied either creationist sites that make the same claim as you or sites that are rebutting those creationist sites.
So you don't find the "rebuttal" figures to your liking? Small wonder. What
would you like?
I doubt very much that you took the time to survey all 127,000 links, and based upon what I saw when I surveyed some of the results, I can say your assessment is not accurate.
Is your lack of knowledge in this area so great that you must bluster and distract rather than answer a few simple questions?
the one claiming not to know the first simple facts about mutations. If you're half as uninformed as you make out, one wonders why you don't read a book or something before venturing to discuss such matters.
I guess your version of evolution suffered a "harmful" mutation during its conception and is now made of straw.
Even if it were true, how would you know? You claim you don't understand the plain simple meanings of words like 'harmful' and 'beneficial'. I have provided a definition of 'mutation', so all that remains for you to claim you don't understand are the adjectives. I doubt this claim, since you attempt to divert to discussing 'neutral'; which strongly implies you [i]do[i] understand the other two terms.
