[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"...example of scientific ignorance from Reuters..."

What is the obvious example of scientific ignorance from Reuters in this?

[Faraday]

The suggestion inferred from the "forced up the rate of mutation" statement, is that the genetic code was responding to the presence of the disease by mutating. This is not how it works. Mutations exist and may give selective advantage to those who contain those traits. When such an advantage exists, over time, the inheritors of the favored trait will tend to be more successful in reproducing. Short of increasing radiation near the gonads (as suggested in post 17), mutations--either to their nature or rate--occur randomly.

[Erasmus]

Faraday, when I first read your comment, I was wondering how a person might misunderstand what the article was saying in re the "forcing up the frequency of the mutation."

From the comments of the others on this point, I see that there is an ambiguity that revolves around the meaning of the word "frequency." The origninal statement, as I read it, meant "the number of mutations per capita." However, one could read it as meaning "nuber of mutations per unit time," which would not be what the author meant.

In demographics and epidemiology, "frequency" almost always means "number of cases divided by the total population."