{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04122137404580153, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025954198473282442, 'mean_word_length': 4.90990990990991, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The case for large-size mutations

There are no laws of physics or chemistry that forbid large mutations. Therefore, the "size" of a random mutation should fit the mathematics of a Poisson point process: the number of mutations (N), versus mutation size (MS), should obey an exponential relationship. Three examples are examined: a simple 15-mutation sequence; actual experimental data involving a sequence of 56,611 random action potentials (rather than mutations); and a synthetic sequence of 65,535 random mutations. In the latter example, with an average MS of 2.22 units, the largest MS is a 25-unit giant that would be associated with major changes.