0

# Haldane Dilemma: The Math which sank evolution

Sat 29 Apr, 2006 07:15 am
The most major book which deals with this topic is Walter Remine's "Biotic Message".

Walter Remines Pages dealing with the Haldane Dilemma"
http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm

Robert Williams' lame "refutation"
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html

Fred Williams' rebuttal of Robert Williams' lame "refutation":
rebuttalhttp://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm

Talk.origins FAQ/FGU:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

FGU stands for Frequently Given-out Understanding, which is a better description of the material on the talk.origins website than "FAQ". Pronunciation of FGU is obvious...

The Haldane Dilemma itself is not complicated. More like higher arithematic than like higher math in fact; if you can count, you can understand it.

Remine's Simple Version:

Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or "proto-humans" ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a "beneficial mutation". Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in "human evolution". The max number of such "beneficial mutations" which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.

In a rational world, that should be as far as most people need to read.

That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.

But nobody ever accused evolutionites of being rational. Surely, they will argue, the problem might be resolved by having many mutations being passed through the herd simultaneously.

Most of the answer involves the fact that the vast bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal. ANY creature which starts mutating willy nilly will perish.

In other words, the evolution "process" here pretty much has to be one "beneficial mutation" at a time, even assuming that such a thing as a "beneficial mutation" exists which, in the real world, is very far from obvious.

In the real world, the common English term for "mutation" is "birth defect", and virtually all mutations have names. None of them are terribly beneficial:

The Wikipedia (very long) list of genetic disorders (another term for "mutations"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

Walter Remine notes that the 500,000 mutation figure he got from having a whole herd of animals drop dead other than for two and the two replace the herd every generation is very far from possible in reality.

Remine notes that:

Haldane's calculation goes something like this (when all the logic is filled in). Take the reproduction rate of a higher vertebrate (especially the problematic species with low reproduction rates, such as cows, humans, apes, whales, elephants). Next, subtract the reproduction rate that must account for random loss in the population (anything that affects the fit and unfit alike. That would include large components of the losses suffered in floods, fires, diseases, famines, and much more). Next subtract 1.0, which is the reproduction rate required merely to continue the population into the next generation. Next subtract the reproduction rate that must account for harmful mutations (because many of the fit progeny suffer harmful mutation too). Next subtract the reproduction rate that must account for the maintenance of polymorphisms in the population. And so forth down the list of costs. When you're all done, you have a reproduction rate of 0.1 leftover (according to Haldane) for paying the cost of substitution. Then, if the total cost is 30, and it is paid in installments of 0.1 per generation, then it takes 300 generations to complete one substitution.

J.B.S. Haldane was a brilliant mathematician and population geneticist and a devout evolutionist in an age when enough was still unknown that believing in evolution wasn't totally stupid like it is now. He nonetheless turned up results which pretty well damned evolution and he assumed he was probably missing something and that better info would turn up later, but he wasn't and it hasn't.

The numbers he got using assumptions which maximally favored evolution were that you could substitute something like 1700 genetic traits max into a population of "proto humans" in 10 million years, i.e. that human evolution would take longer than the entire universe has existed according to the big bang theory.

Evolutionism has to be the stupidest ideological doctrine ever devised by the mind of man. In a rational world it would have been abandoned decades ago. It persists because so many losers use it as a psychic security blanket of sorts.
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
• Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,813 • Replies: 7
No top replies

Wolf ODonnell

1
Sat 29 Apr, 2006 07:17 am
You just don't quit, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_Dilemma
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

Haldane's Dilemma is an oversimplified proposition that is based on an invalid assumption.

I also notice that you're now relying on Communists to do your dirty work for you, Gunga. I thought you hated pinkos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.B.S._Haldane

EDIT: Oh, my mistake. Dr. Haldane is an ex-Communist.
0 Replies

gungasnake

1
Sat 29 Apr, 2006 07:43 am
Ever try reading (as opposed to pouncing)? I mean, that was less than a minute to response. Or is sitting on these kinds of threads on forums some sort of a 24/7 paying job with you?

Wikipedia obviously was not written by one person. Whoever wrote the wiki article on Haldane is a commited evo-loser (just like you). The article on genetic defects (mutations) is ideologically neutral.

As to Haldane himself, if he was a commie, he wasn't alone back then. Before Joe McCarthy, being a commie in America had almost become respectable.
0 Replies

edgarblythe

1
Sat 29 Apr, 2006 07:47 am
A minute or two days, it's the same inane pap.
0 Replies

dlowan

1
Sat 29 Apr, 2006 07:48 am
gungasnake wrote:
Ever try reading (as opposed to pouncing)? I mean, that was less than a minute to response. Or is sitting on these kinds of threads on forums some sort of a 24/7 paying job with you?

Wikipedia obviously was not written by one person. Whoever wrote the wiki article on Haldane is a commited evo-loser (just like you). The article on genetic defects (mutations) is ideologically neutral.

As to Haldane himself, if he was a commie, he wasn't alone back then. Before Joe McCarthy, being a commie in America had almost become respectable.

Clearly current environmental toxins are naturally selecting for wolves to become pouncers, as opposed to running down the prey animals, which are now frequently slowed down by heavy memes.

It will be interesting to further observe this evolutionary trend as it unfolds in certain partd of the continental United States....(the toxins appear to have been unable to penetrate prey populations north of the border.)
0 Replies

Wolf ODonnell

1
Sat 29 Apr, 2006 07:57 am
gungasnake wrote:
Ever try reading (as opposed to pouncing)? I mean, that was less than a minute to response.

Actually, it helped that you had posted more or less the same damned thing in the population genetics post.

Quote:
Wikipedia obviously was not written by one person. Whoever wrote the wiki article on Haldane is a commited evo-loser (just like you). The article on genetic defects (mutations) is ideologically neutral.

Can anyone say, hypocrite? You cited a Wikipedia article yourself. Not to mention I had a feeling you'd state that Wikipedia was not valid (despite quoting it yourself) so I edited it later to include one where more than one person cannot edit the content.

Furthermore, the second link I gave contained a reference:

Wallace, Bruce, 1991. Fifty Years of Genetic Load - An Odyssey. Cornell University Press. See particularly Chapters 5, 6, 8, and 9.

That reference itself contains info regarding the irrelevance of Haldane's Dilemma.

dlowan wrote:
Clearly current environmental toxins are naturally selecting for wolves to become pouncers, as opposed to running down the prey animals, which are now frequently slowed down by heavy memes.

It has nothing to do with that. It just happened that this particular prey is small and wolves pounce on small prey. They only run down large prey.

EDIT: I just noticed that Gunga quoted a reference to Haldane's Dilemma which contains a refutation of it in the same page. Does he actually read any of his sources before he uses them?
0 Replies

farmerman

1
Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:59 am
Im just curious, gunga is violently opposed to natural selection, he even dargs up 50 year old proposals that have been refuted 30 years ago .
The fact that remine reduces his "breeding population" down to 6 individuals in the MONKEY program is something that all the "Scientific Creation Types" havent been able to refute.

Thi has been settled to the understandings of science ,populations and the inherent diversity is a factorial that doesnt start with 6!.

Dream on gunga. Remine is just showing his accute ignorance of anything in biology, Hes merely a systems guy who hasnt a clue of genomics or all the other support sciences.

Even Behes praise was measured

"Remines work is well resaerched and convincingly presented, who knows, it may even be correct"?

Ha. Roll out the Nobel prize/
Quote:
1. ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several 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).

There are others ,
0 Replies

farmerman

1
Sat 29 Apr, 2006 01:43 pm
Handling your arguments respectfully is a rather simple task, however being asked to remain polite while you begin your hostile rants to ridicule things of which you have only the most limited of knowledge, I find offensive. Either you practice some reciprocal respect and debate like a reasonable human or I will , personally begin my own style of ridicule that will be much more effective than your feeble attempts at "sounding credible".
I wont report you, Ill just have some crude fun, and, unless you spend some time on google scholar, youll be even more clueless. If you wish to remain a trog, no problem, just try not to argue points with which you are only minimally conversant. Gunga-
0 Replies

### Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake

1. Forums
2. » Haldane Dilemma: The Math which sank evolution