the impact on what? This sentence reflects much of the paper. It is difficult to see what we are talking about in the first place.I should say that the reviewers did make several reasonable points as well. It wasn't all "I'm too lazy to read your ms carefully, and you didn't cite my 1947 paper, so I hate you" kind of comments.
Are you serious? It says right there in the preceding sentence that we are talking about adaptation!
Sentence wrong. Drift is irrelevant to the fact that a mutation is deleterious.
Review wrong. We aren't talking about drift, but random death.
Epistasis is not defined per mutation
Yes, we define it per mutation. You're welcome.
This is wild speculation
Or just speculation. Heed it.
What if we done the Schrodinger's cat experiment?
6 hours ago in Doc Madhattan