500 PHD-level scientists who refuse to buy into evo-loserism

gungasnake wrote:

You need to read up a bit, particularly on the topic of J.B.S. Haldane and the problems which population genetics pose for evoloserism, and the so-called Haldane Dilemma. Five billion years would not be anywhere remotely close to long enough.

If J. B. S. Haldane were alive today I sure he wouldn't provide support to the delimma that you ascribe to his name. Particularly since the main source of the delimma is a consequence of the invalid assumptions that only one gene can be fixed at a time and that no other changes can accumulate until the ongoing one is fixed. The result multiplying the number of generations per fixation by the number of total DNA differences makes no sense.

Problems with Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).

In addition Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.

The problem of Haldane's ?'Dilemma' on the other hand really isn't Haldane's it comes from Walter ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, and adds several more invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:

The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.
Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.
Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.
Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.
ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).

References:
1. Haldane, J. B. S., 1957. The cost of natural selection. Journal of Genetics 55: 511-524.
2. Musgrave, Ian, 1999. Weasels, ReMine, and Haldane's dilemma. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep99.html
3. ReMine, Walter J., 1993. The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, Inc.
4. Wallace, Bruce, 1991. Fifty Years of Genetic Load - An Odyssey. Cornell University Press. See particularly Chapters 5, 6, 8, and 9.
5. Williams. (See above)

Further discussion of Haldane's supposed 'dilemma' can be found at
Population Genetics Made Simple by David Plaistid (it is much too long to cutnpaste here)

BTW Gunge, I'm still waiting to hear how Benedict Arnold could possibly be the first democrat while he was lying in his tomb in London in 1801.

Rap

0 Replies

Heliotrope wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
ANY religion would be better than evolution, and that includes voodoo, Odin worship, and santarea. You could take your pick.

This is fear.
Raw and naked fear.
I'm really shocked to see it so clearly displayed.

The fear on display is that of the evo-losers who are trying to move heaven and earth to prevent the fact that there is even any sort of a controversy involving evolution from being discussed in public schools.

It's the evos who have things to hide and be afraid of, and not the ID proponents.

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
You need to read up a bit, particularly on the topic of J.B.S. Haldane and the problems which population genetics pose for evoloserism, and the so-called Haldane Dilemma. Five billion years would not be anywhere remotely close to long enough.

If J. B. S. Haldane were alive today I sure he wouldn't provide support to the delimma that you ascribe to his name. Particularly since the main source of the delimma is a consequence of the invalid assumptions that only one gene can be fixed at a time and that no other changes can accumulate until the ongoing one is fixed.p

Why be just a little bit ignorant when you can go for broke, right?

The thing Haldane demonstrated is precisely the fact that trying to substitute multiple genetic changes through the herd simultaneously will not save anything.

Try understanding these topics before writing or talking about them.

0 Replies

One other way of looking at the Haldane dilemma is that it is one of the two major motivations for the new quasi official variant of evo-loserism called "punctuated equilibria" or "punk-eek". The writings of Meyr and others clearly describe the problem as something which has to be dealt with, and they try to deal with it by claiming that meaningful genetic change and evolution only take place amongst very small groups of animals penned into some isolated location.

The other motive for PE is the lack of intermediate fossils of course.

0 Replies

lol, ok then gungasnake.
I now believe that life was created by a giant jello spirit, which moulded life out of huge lakes of jello which it found deep in the center of the moon. Thankyou for enlightening me.
To think that it is more likely that a god waved his magic wand and went '*poof* - i have made life' instead evolution generating life is not rational though, and i would recommend you to open your mind as well as asking other people to.
Stating that I should read up a bit does not make me wrong on the grounds that the material you have read (which may or may not be right) says things opposite to what I think.
I could wip out some scientology hocus pocus and say, "You should read up a bit, you obviously dont know about the xenu incident and Operating thetan levels".
Rapraps replie is well structured and written with thought. I would suspect he is a far more intelligent man than you are, and yet when he provides his substantial fact-based rebuttle you inform him:
"Why be just a little bit ignorant when you can go for broke, right?"
and
"Try understanding these topics before writing or talking about them."
You have to do a bit more than that to rebute his lengthy reply u know.
Once again I would ask if you really comprehend the idea of 5 billion years (imagine one year and mulitply by 5000000000).
You have still not answered my original question:
Do you " disagree that evolution actually occurs, and natural selection actually occurs? "

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

lol, ok then gungasnake.
I now believe that life was created by a giant jello spirit, which moulded life out of huge lakes of jello which it found deep in the center of the moon. Thankyou for enlightening me....

Don't get me wrong, I don't RECOMMEND that, but even that is better than evolution.

0 Replies

Why is that better?
And once agan:
Do you disagree that evolution actually occurs, and natural selection actually occurs?

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

Rapraps replie is well structured and written with thought. I would suspect he is a far more intelligent man than you are, and yet when he provides his substantial fact-based rebuttle... "

Flaprap's blathering indicates that he knows precisely nothing about population genetics, the theory of evolution, the Haldane dilemma, or anything related to any of them.
He's basically a blowhard. Don't ask me to respect blowhards.

Amongst the other fairytale aspects of the theory of evolution, the theory requires that the non-existent "beneficial mutation" have a "selective advantage" (you counting? that's two pieces of total BS for the price of one...) and that this "selective advantage" of the creature with the good change, typically taken to be a mutated nucleotide, will gradually cause the old stock to die out until all are replaced.

This is necessary for the theory because otherwise, every time any non-fatal mutation occurred, there would afterwards be creatures of both old and new stock repropducing themselves into the future. In other words, we would actually see creatures at every step of the process from the mythical "ape-like ancestor" to ourselves, walking around today.

The basic idea is that 10 million years ago you had a population of apes or ape-like human ancestors, and today you have a population of humans with no trace of intermediates.

Thus, in order to substitute any genetic trait into a population, there is a cost in that a certain number of the creatures have to die in order for one substitution to take place. If you try to substitute multiple changes into the herd willy nilly, the cost will become unpayable, and the herd will perish.

The real source on this particular topic is Walter Remine's "The Biotic Message".

http://www1.minn.net/~science/

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

Why is that better?
And once agan:
Do you disagree that evolution actually occurs, and natural selection actually occurs?

MICROEVOLUTION occurs (**** appens...).

Natural selection is real enough, but in real life, it is very far from the thing which evo-losers perceive it to be. In real life, natural selection is an agency of stasis and not of change. It weeds out anything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a particular species. It's the chief mechanism for PREVENTINNG macroevolution.

0 Replies

Interesting how the only one calling names is gunga.. Fear Gunga?

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Flaprap's blathering

Gunge when you devolve into ad hominem, I seem to prefer the sobriquet rapcrap to flaprap. It seems to roll off of the tongue easier.

I wish to thank you because you've re-introduced me to the Cellular automata as explored by Steven Wolfram (et.al.) and applied in Finite Analysis, Fault and Event Tree Analysis and Genetic Algorithms. The problem and beauty with Cellular Automata is that it starts with a minimum of constraint (rules) and proceeds to either self destruction or amazing stability very quickly. IOW if something goes starts to go wrong, with the speed of most computation, it can go bad very fast. That was the self admitted consequence of Haldane's hypothesis that ReMine ignored in his supposed dilemma discovery.

I will celebrate ReMine for one thing---among the ID crowd he stands in a very small circle?-he presented a falsiable proposition, one that was capable of peer review.

For many hours of Cellular Automaton entertainment, one that has provided me with many hour of amazement see John Conway's Game of Life. The rules are short and simple and the system is amazingly stable. Very much like evolution.

Admitted Rapcrap (in italics)
Hey I got a question fer you, Gungeboy---if Benedict Arnold was the first Democrat, would that make George the 3rd the first Republican? After all they're both buried in London (that's England by the way)

Rap

0 Replies

More rapcrap blathering

An interesting page concerning Haldane's (un)Dilemma can be found here. This page also goes into problems with the ReMine's assumptions. This page provides lots of supporting links that indicate that the majority of the Dilemma of Haldane assumptions were anticipated, reviewed, and peer reviewed, in some cases more than 30 years before the publishing of the ReMine book.

Rap

0 Replies

Quote:

An interesting page concerning Haldane's (un)Dilemma can be found here. This page also goes into problems with the ReMine's assumptions.

A thoroughgoing debunking of that entire analysis can be found here:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm

Quote:

.....Let me bring in another Williams to refute Williams! Highly regarded evolutionist George C. Williams wrote the following regarding Wallace and soft selection:

"...the problem [of Haldane's dilemma] was never solved, by Wallace [soft selection] or anyone else. It merely faded away, because people got interested in other things. They must have assumed that the true resolution lay somewhere in the welter of suggestions made by one or more of the distinguished population geneticists who had participated in the discussion." 10

As we can see, Robert Williams' last effort to soften the blow of Haldane's Dilemma is disputed by an evolutionist of considerably more standing.
Conclusion

Despite various attempts by evolutionists over the last 40 years to soften the impact of Haldane's Dilemma, it still remains an enormous problem for their theory. It is worth noting that Haldane's analysis even used very favorable assumptions for the evolutionary theory, such as assuming the mutations are dominant (recessive mutations pay an exponentially higher cost). Regardless, the numbers do not bode well for the evolutionists, and is very likely why the problem stays buried in back-room discussions and does not see the light of day in evolutionary textbooks....

0 Replies

Quote:

An interesting page concerning Haldane's (un)Dilemma can be found here. This page also goes into problems with the ReMine's assumptions.

A thoroughgoing debunking of that entire analysis can be found here:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm

Quote:

.....Let me bring in another Williams to refute Williams! Highly regarded evolutionist George C. Williams wrote the following regarding Wallace and soft selection:

"...the problem [of Haldane's dilemma] was never solved, by Wallace [soft selection] or anyone else. It merely faded away, because people got interested in other things. They must have assumed that the true resolution lay somewhere in the welter of suggestions made by one or more of the distinguished population geneticists who had participated in the discussion." 10

As we can see, Robert Williams' last effort to soften the blow of Haldane's Dilemma is disputed by an evolutionist of considerably more standing.
Conclusion

Despite various attempts by evolutionists over the last 40 years to soften the impact of Haldane's Dilemma, it still remains an enormous problem for their theory. It is worth noting that Haldane's analysis even used very favorable assumptions for the evolutionary theory, such as assuming the mutations are dominant (recessive mutations pay an exponentially higher cost). Regardless, the numbers do not bode well for the evolutionists, and is very likely why the problem stays buried in back-room discussions and does not see the light of day in evolutionary textbooks....

0 Replies

duplicate/software error

0 Replies

A name so nice it has to be posted twice.

Williams still doesn't answer William's questions on the ReMine assumptions of his Haldane Genetic Algorithm model. To wit

1) The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.

2) Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.

3) Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.

4) Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.

5) ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).

It seems that George William's major problem with Roger Williams was that he selected his reading of ReMine's Book after finding several fatal flaws.

Rap

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

RaceDriver205 wrote:
lol, ok then gungasnake.
I now believe that life was created by a giant jello spirit, which moulded life out of huge lakes of jello which it found deep in the center of the moon. Thankyou for enlightening me....

Don't get me wrong, I don't RECOMMEND that, but even that is better than evolution.

I like the jello spirit thing too. Very creative Smile

But you can't escape evolution with GungaFiction, not if you live in the real world.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

In real life, natural selection is an agency of stasis and not of change. It weeds out anything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a particular species.

If that were true all people would look the same. All dogs, all cats, all sparrows, all pigeons, all guppies, etc. And yet, they don't.

Variation in populations is common, selection relates variation to environment based on successful reproduction. And voila; evolution.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

If that were true all people would look the same. All dogs, all cats, all sparrows, all pigeons, all guppies, etc. And yet, they don't.

All the lot,people included,look the same to me at certain times and under certain circumstances.Possibly ros the differences are mere fashions.Possibly I've seen too many animal cartoons and paintings from the "Life ain't what it looks like in Valentine Day adverts" school.

There was a mildly plump exhibitionist in the pub last night who looked quite like a seal.Especially when she walked from her seat to the private room which she did more often than one would have thought necessary.She took about 6 inch strides and pulled up in a shuffle.And there's quite a few look like vultures.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

There was a mildly plump exhibitionist in the pub last night who looked quite like a seal.Especially when she walked from her seat to the private room which she did more often than one would have thought necessary.She took about 6 inch strides and pulled up in a shuffle. And there's quite a few look like vultures.

Was one of those a Spendi-Vulture?

0 Replies

500 PHD-level scientists who refuse to buy into evo-loserism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know