Haldane's Dilemma

RADIOCHEMIST

Helen: "To Radiochemist and Pat Parson: you are both assuming an
ancient age for humanity. Pat is also assuming a lower level of
intelligence in the past. I disagree with both assumptions."


No, my comments did not depend on an ancient age for humanity and
your view does not depend on a young age for humanity. Whether or not
humanity is acquiring a lethal burden of mutations is not dependent
on the age of humanity it depends on how many mutations are being
acquired.

You think that humanity is acquiring a lethal burden of mutations.
But your case suffers from the fact that mankind is flourishing in
terms of numbers. You would have a much stronger case if the numbers
were declining, but they are not. It might be, perhaps, that numbers
could increase sharply even though the genetic burden is increasing,
but you have no proof that the genetic burden is increasing. Not
being able to provide that proof, you can't even point to a decline
in population as being a support for your view. I notice you don't
even attempt to answer the question as to how population can still
be increasing even with the genetic load that bothers you. The
proof is in the pudding. In this case, the fact that the population
is increasing, is strong evidence that the genetic burden is not
becoming troublesome. It is the strongest evidence available on this
point, and it does not favor your case. A good theory should account
for the observed facts. Yours does not.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

SCOTT PAGE

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Scott: you wrote, I was not aware that mathematical theoretical constructs have more status than actual observations.

Helen: That was not what I said. I said error catastrophe is a mathematical theoretical concept and as such is probably better that a PHILOSOPHICALLY theoretical concept. I was dealing with theory in both cases, not with actual observations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If so, it was a diversion. I pointed out that error catastrophe is theoretical no matter how you want to cloak it, it has not been observed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

However, I do very much agree with you concerning your next statement:
Mathematical models seem to be preferred by some over empirical evidence, and the reasons for this are obvious.

This is exactly what most computer models and the game theory models do! I prefer empirical evidence, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You miss the point. It is creationists, such as Dembksi and ReMine, that prefer their favorite mathematical scenarios to actual empirical evidence. There is a huge difference between mathematical models based on theoretical constructs and those based on data.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Then, regarding the NG list of problems associated with mutations, you wrote,
Scott:
We have only been able to IDENTIFY genes associated with various disorders for a few decades, tops. Certainly, the specific genetic loci involved have only within the past few years been pinpointed. It is a technology issue.

Helen: Oh, I think there will be a few surprises involved for people. Here is one about something much simpler than human beings. Here is a mutations which looked like it had a short term benefit, but was deleterious in the long run. That is something which may not have just happened once in the history of the world, do you think?
The abstract is at: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/032671599v1
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is diversionary, Helen, and irrelevant. This paper does not even indirectly deal with what I wrote. Please deal with the topic at hand. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
You then wrote:
Scott:
It should not surprise anyone without an agenda that the number of diseases associated with a definite genetic component is growing and will probably continue to grow – we can actually discover them now. Prior to the knowledge that many diseases have a genetic component, the causes were attributed to something else.

Helen:
Presumably we will then be able to accumulate a list of preserved known good mutations, too, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have asked you on several occasions and NEVER received even a hint of an answer:

How do we FIND these good mutations?

We know about deleterious or disease associated mutations because of the malady associated with it – we can trace the cause to a genetic component.

But what shall we look for? Do we ask people who feel really, REALLY good to give up a tissue sample? What do we compare it to? Someone that DOESN’T feel really, really good? Or is this one of those ‘new limb’ type of things?

You do not seem to understand how these genetic disease components are discovered, and as such, your usual retort about finding ‘good’ mutations is premised on an ignorance of the underlying methodology.

Of course, you did not actually respond to my points:

It should not surprise anyone without an agenda that the number of diseases associated with a definite genetic component is growing and will probably continue to grow – we can actually discover them now. Prior to the knowledge that many diseases have a genetic component, the causes were attributed to something else.

and


In order for your implication to have any scientific merit at all, you would need to supply a list of new disorders that have a genetic component. Look at your list – how many of the disorders are ‘new’?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Scott: In order for your implication to have any scientific merit at all, you would need to supply a list of new disorders that have a genetic component.

Helen: Why? My point was that sexual reproduction is not doing a very good job getting rid of these. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if that really was your point, you were arguing against a strawman, as I already explained. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


Therefore the longer they have been around, the worse a job sexual reproduction is doing eliminating them! New mutations are presumably getting wiped out all the time. But look at these – and you are right, they are not new! And they are of no benefit to any human being alive. So why have they not been eliminated, as evolution says they should?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evolution does not say any such thing. Evolution is not about perfection. It is about making do. Your repeated attempts to erect strawmen take away form the discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
And you stated in closing, “evidence…indicates that sex keeps the accumulation of them at a lower rate than would otherwise occur” to which I definitely agree. That was never my argument at all! Just take a look at that number from NG and be grateful!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are being disingenuous here. You wrote:
“From National Geographic in October of 1999, a list of known results of negative mutations in the human genome.”
This is the same list that you have presented many times before. Previous presentations of this list – by you – were made to ‘prove’ that evolution could not occur because of all these bad mutations. It is your implicit claim that because there are these mutations – and you have also claimed that this indicates an accumulation of genetic disorders – we are in error catastrophe.
This is not the case.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

But again, where are the positive mutations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are the ones that DON’T make us ill. Again, tell us all what – exactly – we should look for.

 

HELEN

To Pat, Radiochemist, and Scott –

Pat: Please explain to Scott how to find positive mutations, OK. He
doesn’t know.

You wrote: we accept the evidence for an ancient age for humanity. No
assumptions necessary. When we find humans hundreds of thousands of
years ago, it's not hard to realize that humans have been around for a
long time.

You don’t find humans around hundreds of thousands of years ago. You
have found some bones that you are dating at that age and then declaring
them human. Big difference.

Nor was intelligence lower 20 years ago than it is today. Tests have
been re-written in an effort to correct racial and cultural bias, but
the human race has not gotten any smarter! As far as ancient ages go,
we cannot figure how they built the pyramids, aligned them the way they
did astronomically, or knew about trepanning craniums.

In fact they did much better then than later in history:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is hard to believe, but judging from the number of skulls
which showed healing and bone regeneration
at the borders, the proportion of
"patients' who survived the ordeal of a trepanning was quite high, from
65 to 70 %. Out of 400 skulls examined by
one researcher, 250 indicated recovery. In modern times
(14th to 18th centuries) this proportion
was much lower, sometimes approaching zero. Birner (1996)
cites that a professional "trepanator"
named Mery, lost all his patients in 60 years of activity. The most
common cause of death was infection of the
meninges or of the brain, or hemorrhage. http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n02/historia/trepan.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Indus River Civilization people were smart enough to build cities
above the flood plain. People in America today are not that smart. I
live near Sacramento. Areas flood on a regular basis…Parts of Denver
and the Midwest are the same. No, we are not any smarter!

You said young creation was my assumption and contradicted by the
evidence. That is exactly my opinion of your old universe/earth/life
ideas.
For instance, coral reefs may not be the evidence you think they are.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/22086.htm

But, that, actually, can be another thread if you like.

And I had to chuckle when I saw your assertion that we are becoming
physically better. That doesn’t work for either creation or evolution!
Evolutionarily, the precursor of the apes and humans was probably MUCH
more physically capable than we puny homo sapiens are today; there has
been a pretty big tradeoff there evolutionarily and it is claimed that
we replaced brawn with brains. And if you want to go with creation, we
have also degenerated from ‘very good’ to ‘maybe they’re still
passable!’ That last judgment is mine and a bit tongue in cheek if you
missed it.

============

To Radiochemist:
You stated No, my comments did not depend on an ancient age for
humanity and
your view does not depend on a young age for
humanity. Whether or not
humanity is acquiring a lethal burden of
mutations is not dependent
on the age of humanity it depends on how many
mutations are being
acquired.

Actually it is both. The longer the age for humanity, the longer a time
the mutational heritage has had to build, regardless of rate.


You think that humanity is acquiring a lethal burden of mutations.
But your case suffers from the fact that
mankind is flourishing in
terms of numbers.

That is because of medicine, not because of a lack of nasty mutations!
We have decreased maternal and infant mortality incredibly, cleaned up
so that the various plagues are not the threat they were, increased care
and understanding of the elderly, etc. We have more people because they
are not dying off in the numbers that they would were there no
medicine. This has nothing to do with evolution, but with technology
and care.

A couple of years ago I picked up Arno Karlen’s Man and Microbes;
Disease and Plagues in History and Modern Times. If he is right,
then we will not see the numbers increase the way predictions would have
it. However the point is that we are not increasing in numbers due to
actual fitness, but due to medical care and basic cleanliness. And, I
think if you look at the rising number of care homes for the elderly,
the retarded, and the unwanted; if you look at the evidently climbing
rates of cancer and various diseases and realize a lot of these people
are being KEPT alive (which I believe is morally right, but that is not
part of this argument at the present), you will see, I think the reason
for our population climb, but I think you will also see that it has
nothing to do with the idea of ‘flourishing.’

=============

And finally, to Scott:

FORGET the theoretical stuff. What I was trying to do was agree with
you in the first place with the slight proviso that, being a
mathematical theory, error catastrophe was somewhat more substantial
than it might be if it were purely philosophical. You missed that point
in your desire to deny everything I ever say, I think. So forget it.

You wrote: It is creationists, such as Dembksi and ReMine, that
prefer their favorite mathematical scenarios to actual empirical
evidence. There is a huge difference between mathematical models based
on theoretical constructs and those based on data.

Dembski is proposing a testing mechanism. If the mathematics of a
testing mechanism bother you there is nothing he or anyone can do about
that. ReMine does the same thing Wells does in one sense – he shows
simply that the evolution models are untenable even in their own
admissions, bit by bit. So using these two men to try to say something
about people you disagree with using mathematical scenarios rather than
physical evidence is a wrong argument. You chose the wrong people with
that one.

However, have you ever even bothered to notice, let alone count, the
number of evolution scenarios which are based purely on the mathematics
of computer models?

And I guess you missed the relevance of the paper I quoted. The fact
is that if a seeming beneficial mutation (and they are certainly rare
enough) can turn out to be damaging in the long run, then how on earth
are you going to get one mutation to build on another to turn a fin into
a leg or a scale into a feather, or a unicellular organism into a
butterfly? In fact, the University of Calif. At San Diego just came out
with great excitement over finding a gene that caused shrimp to lose a
pair of legs. You know what they claim this shows? How shrimp later
became insects! You know what it really shows? Deformed shrimp which
have NO advantage over their fully legged relatives!

You asked how we find good mutations? Pat seems to know. Check with
him. But nothing he mentioned indicates anything that can even begin
to change one sort of thing into another sort of thing, no matter how
slowly.

In addition, how do you find ANY mutations? Aside from presuming them,
you have to look at the genetic structure. I know you know how to do
genetic comparisons. You ridiculed me about it before when I said I
wanted to learn more about it. You told me it was quite simple and how
much time did I need? So I’m sure you can look at genetic comparison
charts and spot mutations and, by your admission, it is just a matter of
technology and time before you find out where the good ones have been!

Then you told me here that is was arguing against a straw man for me to
mention that sexual reproduction was not doing a very good job ridding
the human race of deleterious mutations. But that was exactly the point
of my argument, Scott! You had stated, “Sexual recombination
accelerates the rate at which harmful mutations are removed and the rate
at which beneficial ones are accumulated.” I didn’t claim, nor did you,
that all had to be eliminated. I simply said that, given the number of
problems we associate with these harmful mutations, as evidenced by the
NG list, that sexual reproduction was not doing what it should in this
area! We have quite a build-up of nasty stuff there. And if the
positive mutations are only those Pat can list, then we are in serious
trouble as a human race.

Did you miss what I was trying to say? It was in response to the
statement you had made, so there was no ‘strawman’ about it.

And although some claim the human race is in a condition of error
catastrophe, I did not say that. It may or may not be true. I don’t
know. What I did say was that there is a mathematical theory regarding
error catastrophe and the rate of heritable damaging mutations in a
population, and that the human race does seem to have a bit of a buildup
of genetic load. Whether these two things are on a collision course I
don’t know.

And finally, when I asked, But again, where are the positive
mutations?, you responded:
They are the ones that DON’T make us ill. Again, tell us all what –
exactly – we should look for.

-- I am hoping dreadfully that you really did not mean that healthy
people are that way because of mutations! If health were not our
somewhat natural condition, we could not have survived even as long as
YEC viewpoints say, let alone as long as evolution says we have!

 

SCOTT PAGE

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
HELEN:
FORGET the theoretical stuff. What I was trying to do was agree with you in the first place with the slight proviso that, being a mathematical theory, error catastrophe was somewhat more substantial than it might be if it were purely philosophical. You missed that point in your desire to deny everything I ever say, I think. So forget it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not deny everything you say, Helen. I do take issue with your unnecessary extrapolations and so on, and your many claims premised solely on ‘worldview protection’, such as your implicit claims about knowing the details of that obscure Kimura paper I had mentioned on the old BB. If your point was that error catastrophe is ‘better’ than a purely philosophical construct because it has a mathematical component, then you missed MY point. If you want to rate hypotheses based on whether or not they have a mathematical component, go ahead. The REAL point is that THAT doesn’t matter in the least if actual data contradict them or if there is no data in their support.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
You wrote: It is creationists, such as Dembksi and ReMine, that prefer their favorite mathematical scenarios to actual empirical evidence. There is a huge difference between mathematical models based on theoretical constructs and those based on data.

Dembski is proposing a testing mechanism. If the mathematics of a testing mechanism bother you there is nothing he or anyone can do about that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whats to bother me about it? You hasn’t done a thing that he has claimed he was going to do – and in fact had alluded to being already done. Rigged elections and fallacious applications to the bacterial flagellum are not exactly going to convince those that are skeptical of his methods. Especially when even fellow ID theorists[sic] have found fault – circularity – in his definition of specified complexity. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


ReMine does the same thing Wells does in one sense – he shows simply that the evolution models are untenable even in their own admissions, bit by bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think that, I have to wonder if you actually read his book, and, more importantly, bothered to see if he was correct in his claims. One of the things that struck me the most in ReMine’s self-aggrandizing pap is the FACT that he offers nothing – not even his beloved quotes – to actually support his claims! It is amazing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


So using these two men to try to say something about people you disagree with using mathematical scenarios rather than physical evidence is a wrong argument. You chose the wrong people with that one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great. Please support this claim. Please provide citations from any of either chap’s writings in which they provide physical evidence (or rather, since neither of them actually do any sort of scientific research, citations for primary source literature) for their creationary claims.
And remember – attempting to poke holes in some aspect of evolution, or pointing out issues of contention between evolutionists or unknowns is NOT physical evidence FOR creation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

However, have you ever even bothered to notice, let alone count, the number of evolution scenarios which are based purely on the mathematics of computer models? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Why don’t you name some and explain how they are based solely/purely on mathematical models. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And I guess you missed the relevance of the paper I quoted. The fact is that if a seeming beneficial mutation (and they are certainly rare enough) can turn out to be damaging in the long run, then how on earth are you going to get one mutation to build on another to turn a fin into a leg or a scale into a feather, or a unicellular organism into a butterfly? In fact, the University of Calif. At San Diego just came out with great excitement over finding a gene that caused shrimp to lose a pair of legs. You know what they claim this shows? How shrimp later became insects! You know what it really shows? Deformed shrimp which have NO advantage over their fully legged relatives! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are assuming that all mutations will be just like the one in the paper that you quoted, which I’m sure made the rounds on CRSnet or something. As for the paper that Wells and now you are disparaging – before it has even come out – did YOU actually read it? Or the pertinent material about it? I would say no, because it is hardly as you and Wells describe it. Wells, of course, accuses them of exaggerating and the like.
As is so often the case, it is actually the creationists that are doing the misrepresenting, and failing to see the significance of the actual science being done. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020207075601.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
You asked how we find good mutations? Pat seems to know. Check with him. But nothing he mentioned indicates anything that can even begin to change one sort of thing into another sort of thing, no matter how slowly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I had predicted…. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

In addition, how do you find ANY mutations? Aside from presuming them, you have to look at the genetic structure. I know you know how to do genetic comparisons. You ridiculed me about it before when I said I wanted to learn more about it. You told me it was quite simple and how much time did I need? So I’m sure you can look at genetic comparison charts and spot mutations and, by your admission, it is just a matter of technology and time before you find out where the good ones have been! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I ‘ridiculed’ you before when you presented yourself as being able to understand data matrices and then ‘playing dumb’ when I presented you with the very thing you said you would ‘find troubling’ for creationism – a steady gradation of genetic distance between different taxa. I have the old thread archived – shall I dig it up for you?
It is easy to spot mutations. Look here: http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignment1.htm
I’ll bet you can spot some. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


Then you told me here that is was arguing against a straw man for me to mention that sexual reproduction was not doing a very good job ridding the human race of deleterious mutations. But that was exactly the point of my argument, Scott! You had stated, “Sexual recombination accelerates the rate at which harmful mutations are removed and the rate at which beneficial ones are accumulated.” I didn’t claim, nor did you, that all had to be eliminated. I simply said that, given the number of problems we associate with these harmful mutations, as evidenced by the NG list, that sexual reproduction was not doing what it should in this area! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And therein lies the REPEATED strawman. Don’t you see it? Of course there will be an accumulation of harmful mutations, just as there will be an accumulation of beneficial ones. It is easier for us – especially considering the amount of money poured into medical research – to find the bad ones than to find the good ones. If you say that SR is not doing its job because there is an accumulation of harmful mutations, you are arguing against something that was not in evidence. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


We have quite a build-up of nasty stuff there. And if the positive mutations are only those Pat can list, then we are in serious trouble as a human race. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah… Error catstrophe… <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Did you miss what I was trying to say? It was in response to the statement you had made, so there was no ‘strawman’ about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


See above.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And although some claim the human race is in a condition of error catastrophe, I did not say that. It may or may not be true. I don’t know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It is not. http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/evolution/article/evolution_walker.htm
This is an interview with Dr. Eyre-Walker, who is regarded by many creationists as a leading expert on mutation in the human genome. He says in the article:

“Whether we are likely to go through that mutational meltdown I very much doubt it. It’s much more likely that what will happen is that we accumulate mutations through improved living conditions, modern medicine, and then if those sort of props are removed then we may find ourselves in a rather sorry state. But it’s always very important to remember that this is only true of the developed world. The developing world natural selection is much much more potent, selection is not relaxed anything like to the same extent as it is in the developed world.”

BTW – ‘mutational meltdown’ is a dynamic version of error catastrophe.

He has also complained that creationists are misrepresenting his work…


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
What I did say was that there is a mathematical theory regarding error catastrophe and the rate of heritable damaging mutations in a population, and that the human race does seem to have a bit of a buildup of genetic load. Whether these two things are on a collision course I don’t know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And that is where sexual recombination, among other things, comes in.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And finally, when I asked, But again, where are the positive mutations?, you responded: They are the ones that DON’T make us ill. Again, tell us all what – exactly – we should look for.
I am hoping dreadfully that you really did not mean that healthy people are that way because of mutations! If health were not our somewhat natural condition, we could not have survived even as long as YEC viewpoints say, let alone as long as evolution says we have! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since mutation (all categories) provides the ‘raw material’ for evolution, I most certainly mean that ‘health’ is the product of mutation. The ‘natural condition’ as you call it is the product of what we can call the ‘wild type alleles’ that govern the processes involved in regulating homeostasis. Harmful mutations in these genes will doubtless be selected against, beneficial changes will be selected for.

 

THE BARBARIAN

Helen:
You don’t find humans around hundreds of thousands of years ago. You
have found some bones that you are dating at that age and then declaring
them human. Big difference.

No, that's wrong. Homo erectus was entirely like anatomically modern humans
in the postcranial skeleton. They had some transitional characteristics in
the skull, which became more like modern humans as time went on. They
developed a tool culture and by 500,000 years ago, were able to move into
colder climates like Europe, something that would have been possible only if
they had learned to use fire and clothing. We find traces of hearths in
many of their European sites.

By 40,000 years ago, humans were essentially identical to modern humans,
although they tended to be a bit taller.


Nor was intelligence lower 20 years ago than it is today. Tests have
been re-written in an effort to correct racial and cultural bias,

No. IQ tests are the same. The only difference is that they have had to
raise the raw score necessary to have an IQ of 100 (which is defined as the
average). Kids are getting smarter each generation.

As far as ancient ages go, we cannot figure how they built the pyramids,
aligned them the way they did astronomically, or knew about trepanning
craniums.

Sure we can. For example, we know how the Egyptians quarried the blocks
because we have examples in various stages in the quarries. We know how
they calculated the alignment, because there are documents as to that
process. That was done in Europe long before the Egyptians. It's not
that hard a thing to do.

The Indus River Civilization people were smart enough to build cities
above the flood plain. People in America today are not that smart. I
live near Sacramento. Areas flood on a regular basis…Parts of Denver
and the Midwest are the same. No, we are not any smarter!

Actually, we see the early civilizations of China and Mesopotamia did
just that. And suffered repeated floods as a result. But foolishness is a
constant in human affairs.

You said young creation was my assumption and contradicted by the
evidence. That is exactly my opinion of your old universe/earth/life
ideas.

The difference is that there is evidence for and old Earth, and none
whatever for a young Earth.


For instance, coral reefs may not be the evidence you think they are.

Yep. They're incontrovertable evidence. I don't think you read the
first one very well. It refers to the growth of branching staghorn coral,
which contributes very little to reef structure. Reef-building coral grows
much more slowly in inches per year, but because such corals are much more
massive, they actually build a reef faster than the rapid-growing, but
sparse branching corals.
On the other hand, the first one does a clever little two-step, and tries to
conflate growth of the reef with "soundings", which measure the depth to
soft-bodied sessile organisms which grow much faster, and contribute almost
nothing to reef growth. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible the
author knows little about reefs and simply erred. Soundings will not give
an accurate number for reef growth. Notice that the more accurate numbers
for reef growth are direct measurements, not soundings of the plants and
animals growing on the reef.

And I had to chuckle when I saw your assertion that we are becoming
physically better. That doesn’t work for either creation or evolution!
Evolutionarily, the precursor of the apes and humans was probably MUCH
more physically capable than we puny homo sapiens are today; there has
been a pretty big tradeoff there evolutionarily and it is claimed that
we replaced brawn with brains.

Brawn is not fitness. In fact, humans are certainly more physically fit
to get along in the world at large than chimps are. They can climb a tree,
swim a river, and make a 50 mile trek in the same day. Chimps can't swim,
and they can't trek for long distances. They can't stand up to use tools
for prolonged periods, and their manual dexterity is inferior to ours
because their thumbs are too far back on their hands, and because they lack
the flattened tips we have on our phalanges to make our touch more
sensitive.

Chimps are specialists for a shrinking environment. Humans are generalists
who have a serious of remarkable specializations that make them physically
superior to chimps in almost all environments. Chimps don't even have
brawn over us, because we have learned to use tools to amplify our
strength.

And if you want to go with creation, we
have also degenerated from ‘very good’ to ‘maybe they’re still
passable!’ That last judgment is mine and a bit tongue in cheek if you
missed it.

This Barbarian figures that any time we have to raise the bar on IQ
tests, and human performance records keep improving, it's certainly not
degeneration. The first marathon was pretty slow, and the guy who ran it
died of exhaustion. Even reasonably fit people today run it faster with
no ill effects. So in a couple of thousand years, the best runner in the
ancient Athenian army is eclipsed on occasion by grandmothers.

Johnny Wiesmuller, who won a load of medals as a swimmer in a pre-war
Olympics, couldn't make the women's team today. If all this tells you
that we are degenerating, I'm puzzled.

Haldane's "Dilemma", which even Haldane admitted was surely not accurate
enough to model the real world, falls apart when compared to that real
world.

[ March 01, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

HELEN

To Scott and Pat
Scott,
Glad you don’t deny everything I say.
Yes, I have read ReMine’s Biotic Message, and reference it as
well. His ‘claims’ are his conclusions based on the material he has
presented. You don’t agree with him and that’s fine. I do, and that’s
fine, too. We are entitled to our own opinions.

You wrote: attempting to poke holes in some aspect of evolution, or
pointing out issues of contention between evolutionists or unknowns is
NOT physical evidence FOR creation.

First of all I would respond in kind to you mentioning that just because
people in either the ID or creationist camps don’t all agree with each
other does not mean that they are not on the correct side of the fence.
No one is checking their minds in at the door! But secondly, about
poking holes in evolution not indicating creation – do you have a third
option available? If not, then it is either one or the other and poking
holes in the one is evidence for the other.

You asked about mathematical models regarding evolution. They are all
over the place. Dawkins’ “methinks” is one of them.

Here is one you can play yourself: http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

And this one just hit the news: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020208075727.htm

This last one really does, to my mind, fit the category of “triumphant
discovery of the obvious,” and I wonder how much money they got to do
it, but oh well…

Getting back to the topic – PLEASE show me the list of beneficial
mutations you claim have been accumulating in humans. In fact I am sure
there are hundreds, if not thousands, of professionals who would love to
see that list! That would certainly be JUST as important to medical
science as a list of the problematic ones!

And yes, I DO claim that sexual reproduction is not doing the job
evolution claims it should by leaving so many horrid mutations in the
human population.
You repeated, “Harmful mutations in these genes will doubtless be
selected against, beneficial changes will be selected for.” And I can
only point you to the PARTIAL list that NG had published and say, “Oh,
really???”


And lastly, while you are claiming that health is one product of
mutations/evolution, two thoughts enter my mind:
1. What on earth did any organism do without it?
2. Health is really the natural state of things in the biblical frame of
reference, and life has degenerated since creation.


To Pat: your declarations simply do not determine truth, no matter how
many times you declare them!

1.You are accepting evolutionary interpretations of the data. That’s
fine. But that does not make them true.

2. The constant ‘restandardization’ of IQ and other tests is a reality,
Pat.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.html


as is the fact that the ‘rising scores’ may have little or nothing to do
with actual intelligence. Here, also is this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>September-October 1997
American Scientist Article: Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests
Ulric
Neisser

Abstract
All over the world, average scores on intelligence tests have been
rising for the better part of a century--essentially ever since such
tests were invented. For example, average scores on standard
broad-spectrum IQ tests are going up by about three points-relative to a
mean of 100--every 10 years, and the increases are even higher on
specialized measures of abstract-reasoning ability. The cause of these
enormous gains remains unknown. No one knows if they reflect genuine
increases in intelligence or just a gradual spread of some specialized
knack for taking tests. Greater sophistication about tests surely plays
some role in the rise, and other possible contributing factors include
better nutrition, more schooling, altered child-rearing practices and
the technology-driven changes of culture itself. Neisser explores these
factors, and concludes that our highly visual environment may play a
fundamental role in the increases in IQ scores. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


3. Yes, we know how the Egyptians quarried the rocks and where. But we
do NOT know HOW the pyramids were actually built. If you think you do
know, there are hundreds or maybe thousands waiting for your explanation
here as well!


4. You feel there is no evidence for a young earth. The correction I
would make to your statement is that you refuse any evidence presented.

5. Coral reefs are NOT what you are claiming. The larger ones give
evidence of being built on coral rubble.

6. If you want to believe that humans are more physically fit now than
they were several thousand years ago, fine, go for it. I disagree.

 

[Administrator: Scott Page’s response to Helen was laced with sarcasm and insults. However, as best as we can do, he presented the following points in response to her post.]

1. He felt ReMine’s book offered no data to support its conclusions.
2. Creationist claims are hollow.
3. Helen asked if there was a third option to evolution or creation. Scott suggested “We don’t know” as the third option.
4. He is not sure whether or not mathematical models are actually used in evolution research.
5. He wants Helen to tell him how to find beneficial mutations in humans.
6. He objects to the way she references his previous quotes and feels they are out of context.
7. He made the point that health itself would evolve as pathogens evolved, and that health might have different meanings at different times.
8. He feels that we now how the pyramids were built based on a TLC program and the analysis on the program by an engineer about the pyramids.

 

THE BARBARIAN

Helen, no one's declarations determine truth. It's the evidence we've been
showing you that makes the difference. Yes, we do accept the scientific
understanding of the data. Remember, scientists accept these theories
because they explain the facts. This Barbarian thinks that's good enough.
I'm not sure that you understand that the standardization of IQ tests you
mentioned are just what I told you was happening; the raw score to get a 100
on an IQ test has had to be repeatedly increased. They have been raising
the bar, not lowering it. Go back and check your website again, and you
will see that I'm telling you the truth:
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.html

And yes, we may be getting smarter because schools have improved, or parents
are doing better with kids, or whatever. My point is that, if we were
degenerating, that would not be happening.

I would like to see whatever evidence you have for a young Earth. Could you
start a new thread on that, and post the top ten evidences so that we can
talk about them?

Yes, coral reefs are as old as the evidence indicates. The idea that they
were built of stacked "coral rubble" fails on several points:

1. If the coral was not grown there, you would have to show a mechanism
where it was transported hundreds or thousands of kilometers across the
ocean, to be deposited, mostly in an orientation that made it look like it
grew in place, and then stopped just when humans showed up to see it happen.
If, on the other hand, you think the "rubble" grew in place, and then
collected, you still have the problem of reef coral growing about 0.5cm per
year in opitmum conditions. Whether it remains in place, or gets broken and
stacked, it still has to grow, and there isn't remotely enough time in
10,000 years for that to happen.

And keep in mind, the 0.5 cm per year is if everything, including the rate
of subsidence is perfectly tuned to keep the coral growing at the maximum
rate.

If you want to claim we have degenerated physically, you have to explain the
fact of human performance increases. How can we support the notion of
degeneracy, if today's grandmothers occasionally run marathons faster than
the first one, run by the supposed fastest
runner in the Athenian army about twenty-five hundred years ago? Makes no
sense to me.

[ March 01, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

FRED WILLIAMS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>RUFUSATTICUS (Feb 2): Am I the only one who noticed that EFT
quote-mined here? The authors
clearly give reasons why the "40 offspring" calculation does not contradict
human evolution. However, EFT seems oblivious to that fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is simply not true. Ironically, it is RUFUSATTICUS who is quote-mining
my article. He failed to include my subsequent comments: "Their ultimate
explanation is the same used by Eyre-Walker, Keightley, Crow, et al, truncation selection! Again, there is NO evidence to support that such
strict truncation selection occurs in nature, and even if it did would not
solve the problem. The Genetics authors admit that truncation selection
"seems unrealistic", but submit this view simply because the alternative
explanation is unacceptable to them - that men and apes do not share a
common ancestor."

He also failed to notice that I specifically discuss synergistic epistasis
in my article.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>RUFUSATTICUS: "David, yes they disagree with extreme truncation but
advocate positive epistasis among deleterious mutation. This occurs when the
effects of deleterious are beyond additive."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is precisely "synergistic epistasis", which again I discuss in my
article. Synergistic epistasis is virtually synonymous with truncation
selection. Evolutionists hope that synergistic epistasis is so strong that
it pushes fitness beneath a threshold that will eventuate the organism's
removal via selection (truncation selection). There is no evidence that
such strong epistasis occurs, especially at a level that would even begin to
counter the problem. But even if the synergistic epistasis were extreme (and
thus truncation selection extreme), this still does not remove the burden of
the 40 offspring minimum requirement per female! If selection were perfect,
40 offspring (or specifically conceptions) per female still need to be
selected for removal!!! Removing the 40, even if by perfect selection, only
gets you to break-even, or fitness equilibrium in the population.
Evolutionists continue to ignore this simple, undeniable fact.

Let me repeat: even with perfect truncation selection, a female still needs
to conceive a minimum of 40 times just to get to the plate at maintaining
the population. Once this hurdle is surpassed and the plate is reached,
there still are additional payments needed for those surviving organisms
that may suffer subsequent genetic death due to ugliness, prude-ness, random
death, etc. This 40 number is an absolute bare minimum! Realistically the
number is more severe.

Recently on various boards on the net, including this thread, Scott Page has
been promoting a study that turns out to be a serious backfire for his
position, because it turns out to make the reproductive cost issue much
worse. (Note that I am referring to only one specific element of 'Haldane's
Dilemma', the cost of harmful mutation). In his citation "Positive and
Negative Selection on the Human Genome" (see beginning of this thread),
Scott failed to mention this bit from the study:

"The genomic deleterious mutation rate in humans was previously estimated to
be at least 1.6 on the basis of an estimate that 38% of amino acid mutations
are deleterious. The genomic deleterious mutation rate is likely much larger
given our estimate that 80% of amino acid mutations are deleterious and
given that it does not include deleterious mutations in noncoding regions,
which may be quite common. [emphasis mine]

At a minimum, this moves the requirement from 40 offspring to 60! Using
Crow's adjustment, the number goes to 243! How can evolutionists claim this
sequence comparison data is not evidence against chimp-man ancestry?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>RUFUSATTICUS: In other words, sexual reproduction preserves
beneficial mutations and removes deleterious ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This comes from Page's other citation at the top of the page. It is quite
misleading. Sexual reproduction does not "preserve beneficial mutations".
What the study you are referring to indicates is that sexual reproduction is
better than asexual species at preserving beneficial mutations and weeding
out deleterious ones in a high deleterious mutation environment. You make it
sound as if sexual reproduction promotes the preservation of beneficial
mutations, when in fact it slows their ability to fixate due to the 50%
reproductive barrier that does not exist in an asexual species. Again, only
in a high deleterious mutation environment does sexual recombination begin
to compete with an asxual species for effectivness in fixing beneficial
mutations.
For more details and the proper references, see my recent rebuttal to both
Page's citations on my website:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm

Fred Williams

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

DAVID PLAISTED

RufusAtticus posted the following quotation earlier in this thread:

Thus, the deleterious
mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the
upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low
reproductive rate,

This does at least justify that there is a maximum rate of deleterious mutation for a species and that if this is exceeded the species will die out. This seems to be a form of error catastrophe.

David Plaisted

 

SCOTT PAGE

Reply to Williams:

Since, by definition, a population under selection pressure (i.e., evolving)
will not be at equilibrium, Williams' attempts at 'refutation' are moot.

 

FRED WILLIAMS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Page: Since, by definition, a population under selection
pressure(i.e., evolving) will not be at equilibrium, Williams' attempts at
'refutation' are moot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are mistaken. A population under selection pressure could certainly
remain in genetic equilibrium, provided the number of harmful mutations
accumulating equal the number of harmful mutations being removed by natural
selection.

I would like to clarify something I previously wrote. I re-read a paper
James Crow sent me entitled "The Efficiency of Truncation Selection" (PNAS
Vol 76, No 1 pp 396-399, 1979). Unless I am missing something, Crow showed
that strong truncation selection could at best approach keeping the
mutational load at equilibrium. So, even with perfect truncation selection
(ie all genetic deaths are due to fitness, and the lowest ones at that), for
beneficial mutations to have just an even chance to outpace harmful ones,
the 40 offspring per female is still an absolute minimum requirement.

But this truncation argument is moot anyway, since there is absolutely no
evidence nature ranks and truncates.

Fred Williams

 

SCOTT PAGE

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Page: Since, by definition, a population under selection pressure(i.e., evolving) will not be at equilibrium, Williams' attempts at 'refutation' are moot.

Williams:
You are mistaken. A population under selection pressure could certainly remain in genetic equilibrium, provided the number of harmful mutations accumulating equal the number of harmful mutations being removed by natural selection. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can I be mistaken when all you did was add one of several possible constraints/conditions? It would be more accurate to say that under certain circumstances, an evolving population can remain at equilibrium.
Of course, you neglected to mention anything about the beneficial mutations, which are at the heart of the issue.
No, I am afraid that I am not mistaken, rather, you tried to throw the baby out with the bath water.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I would like to clarify something I previously wrote. I re-read a paper James Crow sent me entitled "The Efficiency of Truncation Selection" (PNAS Vol 76, No 1 pp 396-399, 1979). Unless I am missing something, Crow showed that strong truncation selection could at best approach keeping the mutational load at equilibrium. So, even with perfect truncation selection (ie all genetic deaths are due to fitness, and the lowest ones at that), for beneficial mutations to have just an even chance to outpace harmful ones, the 40 offspring per female is still an absolute minimum requirement. But this truncation argument is moot anyway, since there is absolutely no evidence nature ranks and truncates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are missing something.
If female primates were required to produce a minimum of 40 offspring just to remain at equilibrium, does it not stand to reason that pretty much all New World monkeys and prosimians would have gone extinct by now, considering the brevity of their generation times? Not to mention the fact that there is evidence that there are higher mutation rates in the non-cercopithecid primates.

In addition to truncation selection, there are a number of other mechanisms that remove deleterious mutations in bunches. A few interesting articles that have been shown to you before by ‘Sumac’:

Whitlock MC, Bourguet D. (2000) Factors affecting the genetic load in Drosophila: synergistic epistasis and correlations among fitness components. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 54:1654-1660
Two factors that can affect genetic load, synergistic epistasis and sexual selection, were
investigated in Drosophila melanogaster. A set of five chromosomal regions containing visible recessive mutations were put together in all combinations to create a full set of 32 homozygous lines fixed for different numbers of known mutations. Two measures of fitness were made for each line: productivity (a combined measure of fecundity and egg-to-adult survivorship) and competitive male mating success. Productivity, but not male mating success, showed a pattern of strong average synergistic epistasis, such that the log fitness declined nonlinearly with increasing numbers of mutations. Synergistic epistasis is known to reduce the mutation load. Both fitness components show some positive and some negative interactions between specific sets of mutations. Furthermore, alleles with deleterious effects on productivity tend to also diminish male mating success. Given that male mating success can affect relative fitness without changing the mean productivity of a population, these additional effects would lead to lower frequencies and lower fixation rates of deleterious alleles without higher costs to the mean fitness of the population.


Agrawal AF. (2001) Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction.
Nature 411: 692-695
The maintenance of sexual reproduction is a problem in evolutionary theory because, all else being equal, asexual populations have a twofold fitness advantage over their sexual counterparts and should rapidly outnumber a sexual population because every individual has the potential to reproduce. The twofold cost of sex exists because of anisogamy or gamete dimorphism-egg-producing females make a larger contribution to the zygote compared with the small contribution made by the sperm of males, but both males and females contribute 50% of the genes. Anisogamy also generates the conditions for sexual selection, a powerful evolutionary force that does not exist in asexual populations. The continued prevalence of sexual reproduction indicates that the 'all else being equal' assumption is incorrect. Here I show that sexual selection can mitigate or even eliminate the cost of sex. If sexual selection causes deleterious mutations to be more deleterious in males than females, then deleterious mutations are maintained at lower equilibrium frequency in sexual populations relative to asexual populations. The fitness of sexual females is higher than asexuals because there is no difference in the fecundity of sexual
females and asexuals of the same genotype, but the equilibrium frequency of deleterious
mutations is lower in sexual populations. The results are not altered by synergistic epistasis in males.

Siller S (2001) Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411: 689-692
Sex is expensive. A population of females that reproduce asexually should prima facie have twice the growth rate of an otherwise equivalent anisogamous sexual population lacking paternal care, or a population with modes of paternal care that can be co-opted by parthenogenetic females. The two leading theories for the maintenance of sex require either synergistic interactions between deleterious mutations, or antagonistic epistasis between beneficial mutations. Current evidence is equivocal as to whether the required levels of epistasis exist. Here I show that a third factor, differential male mating success (or, more generally, higher variance in male than in female fitness), can drastically reduce mutational load in sexual populations with or without any form of epistasis. Differential mating success has the further advantage of being ubiquitous, and is likely to have preceded or evolved concurrently with anisogamy.


Of course, there are a number of publications from the early 1970’s and 80s that demonstrate that Haldane’s model was in error.

Some examples:

Grant and Flake, PNAS 71, 1670 (1974)

Flake and Grant, PNAS 71, 3716 (1974)

Grant and Flake, PNAS 71, 3863 (1974)

Darlington, PNAS 73, 1360 (1976)

Darlington, PNAS 78, 4440 (1981)

Darlington, PNAS 80, 1960 (1983)

Darlington, PNAS 74, 1647 (1977)


Strangely, not a single one of them was mentioned in ReMine’s book…

 

FRED WILLIAMS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Page: How can I be mistaken when all you did was add one of several
possible constraints/conditions? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said that “by definition” a population under selection pressure will not
be in equilibrium, and I provided an example that refutes your definition.
If you want to continue to insist that you are not mistaken, you should
provide support for your claim from a textbook or other source. My
suspicions are that you were confusing this with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium,
which assumes no selection and no mutation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Page: You are missing something. If female primates were required to
produce a minimum of 40 offspring just to remain at equilibrium, does it not
stand to reason that pretty much all New World monkeys and prosimians would
have gone extinct by now, considering the brevity of their generation times?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You continue to misunderstand a key part of my argument. I do not believe
the mutation rates these studies are producing are necessarily correct! Why?
Because these studies determine the mutation rate by first assuming
simians and humans share common ancestry! I believe this assumption is
wrong. If evolutionists would stop comparing simian DNA to human DNA they
would not get such ridiculously high substitution rates.

Regarding synergistic epistasis, the study you provide gives a possible
example where mutations may have reduced fitness slightly more than
additive. But you would need extremely strong epistasis coupled with extreme
truncation to even begin to put a dent into the serious load problem U=3
puts on a mammalian species. It is wishful thinking to believe that such
forces are at work in nature. There certainly is no evidence for such strong
epistasis/truncation selection. There is not even much evidence for weak
synergistic epistasis:

“Although there is some theoretical support for synergistic epistasis
(Szathmary 1993; Peck and Waxman 2000), there is little experimental support
for this type of gene interaction (Willis 1993; Elena and Lenski 1997).”
(Agrawal and Chasnov 2001)

And ironically, in a citation you gave in your most recent post:

“Current evidence is equivocal as to whether the required levels of
epistasis exist.” (Siller 2001)

You keep doing my work for me!

Regarding Siller’s claim that higher variance in male fitness will lessen
the problem, Haldane (1957, p 519) mathematically demonstrates that such
variation does not ease the reproductive cost much (Siller is confusing cost
with load).

But this gets back to your citation at the beginning of this thread. I
cannot emphasis this enough. It totally backfired on you because the study
showed that U=3 is an UNDERESTIMATE! Their study shows that U ~= 5
when you use their minimum numbers and throw James Crow’s adjustment for
mutations outside the coding region (Crow 1999). This moves the offspring
requirement to 243!

No matter how you try to slice it, these mutation and substitution rate
studies are producing results that contradict the hypothesis that monkey and
man share common ancestry.

----
Aneil F. Agrawal* and J. R. Chasnov, Mar 26 2001, Recessive Mutations and
the Maintenance of Sex in Structured Populations, the Genetics Society of
America

Siller S (2001) Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411:
689-692

J. Crow, The odds of losing at genetic roulette, Nature 397, p 293 - 294.
(1999)

Haldane, J. B. S. 1957 The Cost of Natural Selection Journal of Genetics
55:511-524

 

DAVID PLAISTED

I thought about this a lot at one time. Suppose we have extreme truncation
selection and there is no cost in fitness until an organism has 100
deleterious mutations, then the organism dies. This means that each
death removes 100 deleterious mutations, so that the population can
tolerate a harmful mutation rate 100 times as large as it would
otherwise. So theoretically (if my recollection of the math is
correct) such truncation selection could reduce the requirement for
such a large number of offspring.

However I don't think anyone is proposing such a model of truncation
selection. But it is still possible that a more modest version of
truncation selection would reduce the number of offspring needed to
enable a species to survive a high mutation rate.

By the way the most recent version of Science had an article proposing
that humans and chimps actually split a longer time ago than thought
and that the molecular clock is also running slower. This could also
relieve the problem with truncation selection -- but it also tends to
negate the "evidence for evolution" based on the supposed agreement between
the mutation rate and the ape-human split.

Dave Plaisted

 

RUFUSATTICUS

RUFUSATTICUS:
Fred,

I would first like to commend you on using references, linking to source
material, and posting rebuttals. However, I still think you are
misrepresenting the words of Nachman and Crowell. They are not advocating a
position that they don't agree with. In fact, they clearly argue for
positive epistasis over extreme truncation selection. There are distinct
differences between truncation selection and positive epistasis. Truncation
requires that there exists a threshold. Positive epistasis does not require
a threshold, only that individuals with multiple deleterious mutations have
additional negative fitness effects due to the combination of mutations.
You claim that positive epistasis does not remove the 40-children burden.
However, their 40-children calculation is done assuming no epistasis. Later
in the same paragraph Nachman and Crowell state, "This problem (of
40-offspring) can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit
synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a
larger decrease in relative fitness" In humans, natural pregnancy loss
has been estimated as high as 80% and it correlates with genetic defects,
which supports their other claim that 40-offspring burden can be softened by
early selection.

Kondrashov advocates the benefits of sexual reproduction in "Deleterious
mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction." Nature 1988 Dec
1;336(6198):435-40.
Abstract:

If I understand you entire page about mutation rates, you are claiming that
the estimated mutation rate is too high for humans to have existed for long
periods of time. Thus we must have been created. However, the calculation
of the mutation rate, which you seem to be accepting as accurate, relies on
the fact that humans and chimps do share a recent common ancestor and
estimation of the time of the split from fossil records, both of which you
disagree with. This places you in a paradox; you disagree with the methods
but accept the results. If you actually do not accept the results, I don't
see how they can support your claim of a recent origin of mankind. You
clearly criticize the works for assuming that humans and chimps share a
common ancestor. Is this a reasonable assumption? The answer is a
resounding yes, considering the fossil, morphological, and genetic evidence
that demonstrates the relationship between humans and chimps beyond a
reasonable doubt. Would you happen to be privileged to any evidence against
this? I've browsed your website but haven't found anything worthwhile.

You have the following on your webpage.

Since I'm intimately concerned with population models, I need to let you
understand something about them. In science, models are never considered to
be more correct than empirical evidence. In other words, data is never
considered wrong because it contracts a model, which is what you claim.
Math must fit the biology, not the other way around. As in all models,
Haldane's estimates are probably wrong because the actual biology doesn't
fit the model. I must also point out that these calculations are based on a
different, more recent and well-supported model: Kimura's neutral model. So
comparing it to Haldane's expectations is clearly a fruitless endeavor.
However, if you feel so strongly about Haldane's model, I urge you to lay it
out, and show how humans, as understood by modern science, actually fit
every single requirement of the model. You should consider all data,
including those, which indicate our relationship to the rest of the animal
kingdom.

David,

I don't see anyone arguing that that is "evidence for evolution." The
authors of the papers that EFT address surely don't argue that their
calculated mutation rates are "evidence" for evolution. It's not needed;
there is already plenty of evidence. It is also not evidence against
evolution, despite Williams' claims. The calculation of the mutation rate
is based on the age of the human-chimp split, so I doubt if anyone could
argue that the "agreement" is evidence for anything.

-RvFvS

Additional References:
Salat-Baroux J. Reprod Nutr Dev 1988;28(6B):1555-68

 

FRED WILLIAMS

While positive epistasis doesn't *require* a threshold, it *forces* a
threshold breach. That is why they go hand in hand. In personal
correspondence with James Crow he uses strong epistasis to bring about what
he calls quasi-truncation selection. He implies that strong epistasis is
needed to make truncation selection even seem tenable. I doubt very much if
there are any informed evolutionists who think truncation selection occurs
without positive epistasis. As I said in my article, synergistic epistasis
is a co-star in the truncation selection just-so story.

In my post on February 20 I tried to clarify this but did not do a very good
job. I think it goes without saying that the population can be spared
eventual extinction or error catastrophe if such strong epistasis and
truncation selection is at work. What Crow's paper demonstrated is that the
load could be kept in check and even possibly near genetic equilibrium
(please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I gather from the paper).
What I am saying is that the 40 offspring would still be needed to get to
the plate to initiate upward evolution. I have a hard time
envisioning deleterious mutations outpacing beneficial mutations yet allow
real, sustainable upward evolution. Additionally, Haldane showed that strong
selection actually increased the reproductive cost (Haldane 1957,
p521). To understand this I think it is crucial to distinguish between load
and cost, they are different.

Most miscarriages are caused by LETHAL mutations. These mutations simply
cannot be accounted for in these various mutation rate studies. That is why
I suspect the authors did not stress this argument. I also note that neither
Keightley nor Crow used the miscarriage argument in their Science magazine
articles.

BTW, I have heard everything from 30% to 80% miscarriage rate. I can see
30%, but I have a real hard time accepting that the rate is 80%. If harmful
mutation rate is this high I suspect U=3 is quite an underestimate.

You must have missed this paragraph in my previous post: "I do not believe
the mutation rates these studies are producing are necessarily correct! Why?
Because these studies determine the mutation rate by first assuming
simians and humans share common ancestry! I believe this assumption is
wrong. If evolutionists would stop comparing simian DNA to human DNA they
would not get such ridiculously high substitution rates."

No, this is not what I claim. I merely pointed out the circular logic. I am
currently debating this with Scott Page, who began this thread and applied
circular logic in his argument. I posted this reply in the debate last
night, which addresses your complaint in detail and why it is unwarranted:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation_2.htm

Of course it's a resounding yes to an evolutionist looking to defend his
holy-of-holies, naturalism. But when you look under the hood, the evidence
is missing. Regarding fossil man, Solly Zuckerman said it best when he
wondered if there was any science to be found in the study of fossil man at
all (paraphrasing from "Beyond the Ivory Tower", 1970). I have also provided
strong genetic evidence from the mutation studies that compare simian/man
DNA that it is very likely they did *not* share common ancestry.

Two things:

1) I personally focus most of my efforts on just one aspect, or
corollary if you will, of Haldane's work, the cost incurred by deleterious
mutation. I believe it is simpler to understand, and data pertaining to this
problem is addressed more frequently in the scientific literature. The
mutation rate is way too high and strongly contradicts the evolution model.
This fact is undeniable, yet most evolutionists continue to deny it (to
James Crow's credit he did admit to me it is a "serious problem"). It
generates just-so explanations like truncation selection, a story void of
evidence you typically only hear about when this mutation rate problem is
discussed. It reveals the weakness in the evolutionist argument.

2) I don't focus as much effort on 'Haldane's Dilemma" because even the
brightest evolutionists, such as James Crow, stumble on the cost versus load
issue. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that Crow and many other
evolutionists are lost on the difference, and the importance of this
difference is crucial. So not many will be convinced by the cost/payment
argument (Haldane's Dilemma in a nut-shell), and will usually walk away
confused or unimpressed. To me it's not worth devoting much effort when such
confusion exists on cost & load. There is far less confusion on the mutation
rate problem. People can better grasp the problem when they are given the
picture that 40 offspring per breeding couple is required just to keep the
population from deteriorating. The audience can decide for themselves if
synergistic epistasis and truncation selection are reasonable solutions, or
just-so stories. And for those who do understand the cost/payment argument,
then even these just-so stories do not help lower the reproductive cost much
as Haldane demonstrated (p521).

For those who do want a very good description of Haldane's Dilemma,
particularly the cost/payment aspect, I highly recommend Walter Remine's
book "The Biotic Message".

 

SCOTT PAGE

Fred wrote: "I have also provided strong genetic evidence from the mutation studies that compare simian/man DNA that it is very likely they did *not* share common ancestry."

I was wondering if Fred could provide a summary of this 'strong' genetic evidence for the board.

Williams wrote: "For those who do want a very good description of Haldane's Dilemma, particularly the cost/payment aspect, I highly recommend Walter Remine's book "The Biotic Message".

I wholeheartedly disagree. ReMine ignores or glosses over the many publications demonstrating that Haldane's model was inadequate. Instead of reading through ReMine's aspersion casting and condescension, I suggest reading the original sources.

 

SCOTT PAGE

</font>[/QUOTE]Rufus, please see my refutation of Williams here:
http://geocities.com/huxter4441/Williams.html

Williams misrepresented the methods employed by the authors of the Genetics paper, which casts even more doubt on his conclusions.

This is an important point. In reading ReMine’s “The Biotic Message”, in which Haldane’s model plays a central role, I noticed that 1.ReMine only mentions two or three publications that dealt with Haldane’s model, when, as I showed, there are actually many, many more available. 2. Those he does mention, he glosses over and attempts to minimize the impact on his reliance upon Haldane by claiming that the authors of those papers are “confusing” issues and don’t actually understand Haldane’s model.
I mention this because Williams gets the bulk of his information on this topic from ReMine. One paper that ReMine does mention, Leigh Van Valen’s 1963 paper “Haldane’s Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis” (The American Naturalist, XCVII (894) p. 185-90), is misquoted and ReMine simply ignores what Van Valen mentions in his paper on that very topic:

“Dodson (1962) seized on this estimate of 300 generations, applied it to evolution within the genus Homo, and, needless to say for this case, found a poor fit with observed and inferred facts.”

In other words, rather than the major collusion to ‘hide’ Haldane’s dilemma form the public, as is ReMine’s repeated charge, evolutionary biologists had presented evidence in the form of application of the model to available evidence as well as re-evaluating the model itself (following) and found it wanting. This ReMine, and therefore all of ReMine’s followers, including Williams, simply ignore.

Van Valen applies the model to the unit of evolution, the population, and ReMine claims that this is a confusion, as if Haldane’s model were set in stone and all encompassing. One of the possible problems in ReMine’s understanding of the issue could stem form his misquoting of Van Valen. On p. 219 of “TBM”, in a footnote ReMine quotes Van Valen:

“Van Valen wrote, "I like to think of it (Haldane's dilemma) as a dilemma for the population."

Reading Van Valen's original paper, we actually see, emphasis mine:

"...but because it necessarily involves either a completely new mutation or (more usually) previous change in the environment or the genome, I like to think of it as a dilemma for the population: for most organisms, rapid turnover in any few genes precludes rapid turnover in the others."

A very long run-on sentence, to be sure (I omitted the introduction of the sentence for brevity).

However, ReMine's quote is in error because as written, ReMine makes it appear that there is no information preceding the statement, and nothing following: The sentence begins well before the point at which ReMine begins his quote, but ReMine does nothing to indicate this. There is no period after 'population' in the original, there is one in ReMine's quote.

ReMine then used his doctored quote to claim that Van Valen 'confuses' the issue and such.
It is easy to claim that a preferred model is unimpeachable when you distort and ignore the impeachments of it.

Very well stated and I wholeheartedly agree. Should Williams take up this cause, doubtless he will rely heavily on ReMine. If this is so, I have numerous papers in my possession that refute ReMine’s position.

Scott Page

 

SCOTT PAGE

I was wondering if Williams would be so good as to explain, in detail, how
this "40 offspring per breeding couple" keeps a population form
deteriorating.

Specifically, I would like to see his population genetics model that
describes how this works (NOTE: I am not asking about the accumulation of
mutations, I am asking how - exactly - having 40 offspring overcomes this
accumulation). In addition, it would do him well to present some real-life
examples.

Thank you.

Scott Page