Haldane's Dilemma

WALTER REMINE

That is untrue. Many publications were used and cited in my material on
Haldane's Dilemma. For example, one footnote (page 216) lists fourteen
different sources to support a point.

For those of you new to this issue, evolutionists rampantly contradict each
other on Haldane's Dilemma, even especially on the fundamentals, such as the
'cost of substitution' and what it means, and what Haldane's Dilemma is.
That is a fact, and my book points it out. Among themselves, evolutionists
possess no agreed solution to Haldane's Dilemma. More significantly, they
do not even possess an agreed understanding of what the problem is.

That is untrue. I never charged evolutionists with "major collusion" or
said evolutionists "hide" Haldane's Dilemma from the public. Moreover, I
have specifically denied such charges on many occasions.

Rather, I said Haldane's Dilemma was garbled, confused, and prematurely
brushed aside. There is a difference.

That is untrue, or at least garbled - it does not match what Van Valen did
with the target of my criticism.

To be precise, the premature "period" he is complaining about is NOT within
my quotation marks, so there is no premature period. I am generally quite
carefully about such things, especially when it brings no extra burden to
the reader.

More importantly, the wording omitted from Van Valen's sentence is not
relevant to the point I make (to the point I make either in my text or in my
footnote dealing with Van Valen's article). Rather, I cite the portion
relevant to my text, and I do not misrepresent Van Valen's position in doing
so. There is a correct and legitimate match-up between what my book
actually SAYS, and its quotation of Van Valen. My book's relevant paragraph
begins, "Some evolutionists try to cast doubt on Haldane's Dilemma by
presenting it in an unlikely, if not bizarre, manner." The paragraph
discusses this point further, gives examples, and cites FOUR evolutionists
who attempt such a maneuver - one of them is Van Valen. Van Valen's
confusion is specifically clarified and discussed at greater length within
my footnote. In this matter, my book does not misquote Van Valen's article.

One of Van Valen's confusions is almost linguistic in character (rather than
conceptual, theoretical, or mathematical). That is he views Haldane's
Dilemma as a "dilemma for the population", whereas I say it is a dilemma for
evolutionary theoreticians -- populations could care less, or know less,
about the matter. This kind of linguistic confusion over the words
"dilemma" and "cost" is fundamental to the matters discussed on that very
page of my book.

Scott Page either misrepresented or left out EVERYTHING my book had to say
concerning Van Valen's article.

To raise your curiosity, Van Valen's almost linguistic confusion, I contrast
with the more solid understanding of Haldane, Kimura, Maynard-Smith, and
G.C. Williams - a group of powerhouse mathematicians/evolutionists who all
saw Haldane's Dilemma as a real problem, not solved by mere linguistic
maneuverings.

[ March 17, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

SCOTT PAGE

I should have indicated that you mention only two or three papers that are critical of Haldane’s hypothetical model. I have Van Valen’s paper in front of me. The footnote of p.216 does indeed list many citations. In support of your statement ‘explaining’ Haldane’s model. Van Valen, on p.186, does indeed explain the same thing. So what? That is non-controversial. I have little reason to suspect that your other citations do anything but the same – reiterate a non-controversial point.

I do have to wonder – where are the footnotes filled with citations for your statements on p. 209 and 217? You do not provide a SINGLE citation supportive of your rhetorical pleas. The objective reader should wonder why that is.

“Take an ape-like creature from 10 million years ago, substitute a maximum of 500,000 selectively significant nucleotides and would you have a poet philosopher? What does that sound like to you?” (p.209)

“Think about it again. Is 1,667 selectively significant nucleotides enough to make a sapien out of a simian?” (p. 217)

However, I admit that I should have been more clear – I should have specified that you provided only two or three citations that contradicted or provide solutions to Haldane’s model.

Haldane’s ‘dilemma’ only seems to be a ‘dilemma’ if: his assumptions and parameters are always correct and always apply to real populations (they are not and do not); you believe – without rationale – that some gigantic number of beneficial alleles are required to account for phenotypic changes (they are not).

It is true that you have never explicitly said that there is a conspiracy, it is true that you have denied saying there was. You do not ever explain or support those claims about the ‘garbling’ and such. The ‘garbling’ comes form the different terminologies employed. But rest assured, population geneticists understand the issues as well as you do, Walter. You say it was ‘prematurely brushed aside’ – surely, you are aware of the series of articles in PNAS in the late 60’s and early 70’s that provided a number of solutions to Haldane’s model? Surely you know of the publications that show that Haldane’s parameters are rarely applicable to real evolving populations?

It is neither garbled nor does it not match your ‘criticism’ (premised on a doctored quote). The ‘target’ of your criticisms is anyone that does not accept Haldane’s model at face value, and assume that it is all-encompassing and always accurate and correct.

Oh, I stand corrected. Generally, perhaps, but not this time. However, the rest of my assessment is correct. The intent is the same. You omit – without indication – the meat of his sentence. Indeed, you omitted it in your response! But let’s put it back in – in its entirety -, so everyone can see why I felt that it was important:

“Kimura (1960, 1961) has referred to this loss as the substitutional (or evolutional ) load, [NOTE – this definition by Kimura has probably contributed to ReMine’s misunderstanding of the issues] but because it necessarily involves either a completely new mutation or (more usually) previous change in the environment of 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.”
Haldane’s dilemma, evolutionary rates, and heterosis. 1963. PNAS 47(894). Van Valen. Leigh.

So, you admit that the quote is butchered, at least. Alas, it seems to me that your characterization is what is bizarre. I also have your Hartl reference, and that is anything but bizarre. Unlike your book, Hartl’s provides the math to support his claims. The math in your book is simply reiteration of what others had already done. Your book might match up what YOUR van Valen quote says, but when it provides only a doctored quote from a paper that provides a rationale as well as supporting documentation for the author’s position, the effort seems a bit curious.

I am unclear as to why ReMine thinks that no one should dare manipulate Haldane’s model, or provide alternatives, or apply it in different ways than Haldane did. His book certainly provides no such answers.

It is all well and good to accuse Van Valen of being confused, but I see no confusion at all. Rather, I see repeated attempts to belittle published population geneticists and evolutionary biologists. Van Valen applies your cost issue, he just applies it in a different manner.

You misrepresent him, as the actual quote shows clearly. And are not individuals part of a population? Your criticism itself seems more a semantics game than anything else.

Hey – I actually agree! Haldane’s model IS a problem for theoreticians, not for populations or evolutionary theory. It is, basically, a math problem, and recent publications using actual data have shown that Haldane’s model is in error, in addition to earlier theoretical papers showing the same. I don’t see at all how the words ‘dilemma’ and ‘cost’ are at issue. I think maybe you refer to ‘load’ and ‘cost’? Well, either way, those in the know understand the differences, if any, depending on what type of load is being discussed.

Walter ReMine misrepresented Leigh Van Valen in his book and misrepresents my post above. I 'left out everything' in your book on this issue, maybe because, Walter, my main point was to show your lapse in scholarship, not your treatment of Van Valen’s paper as such.

Yes – a real math problem. You claim that van Valen made 'errors' then imply that the rest of his paper was built on those errors and so it is useless. You also ignore the fact that he mentions (with a citation, see Van Valen, p.186) that Haldane's numbers had been applied to the evolution of Homo and found to be lacking.

SCOTT PAGE

 

WALTER ReMINE

Scott Page listed "a number of publications from the early 1970’s and 80s
that demonstrate that Haldane’s model was in error". Here are excerpts from
those abstracts (listed in his Feb. 21 post):

"The altruistic-gene theory of kin selection requires conditions
so improbable that its reality is doubtful. .... The probability
of kin selection is further reduced by the cost of evolution by
selection. Much current evolutionary mathematics and
determinist sociobiology, which ignore how the cost of selection
limits the precision of adaptations, including adaptive behaviors,
may be dangerously unrealistic."
-- Darlington, PNAS 78, 4440 (1981), emphasis added

"The blind spot of the present generation of evolutionists
is failure to see the consequences and limits of natural selection.
Darwinian natural selection is a costly process of differential
elimination of individuals. The widely accepted MIS-definition of
natural selection as differential reproduction mistakenly hides the
Darwinian process and its cost. .... My own 'unhappy conclusion'
is that, because most biologists have forgotten what natural
selection is, much current evolutionary and sociobiological theory
presented by the most influential evolutionists is mistaken and
dangerous. Anthropologists and sociologists are wise to distrust it."
-- Darlington, PNAS 80, 1960 (1983), emphasis added

These show the exact opposite of what Scott Page portrays them to be. They
argue: (a) that the cost of substitution (a.k.a. the cost of selection)
limits natural selection. (b) that this has been "ignored". (c) that the
"widely accepted MIS-definition" of natural selection "hides the cost." (d)
and several more juicy points. Those support what I have been saying.

******

Scott Page inverted the facts. Van Valen wrote:

“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.”

Van Valen was there speaking in a veiled manner concerning that cite. If Van
Valen's readers are not already familiar with that cite, then they are left
in the dark as to what it was actually saying. Van Valen's wording was
ambiguous and obscured what his cite was saying. (You'll understand why in
a moment.) Therefore, Scott Page can perhaps be forgiven for
misunderstanding (and inverting) Van Valen's ambiguous wording.

In actual fact, Van Valen is ambiguously re-phrasing Dodson, who directly
pointed out that Haldane's Dilemma, when applied to human evolution, is a
serious problem for evolutionary theory. Scott Page inverted that,
as though it were a problem for "Haldane's numbers".

******

My book shows that the cost of substitution is unavoidable. Anytime a
trait is to progressively go from a few copies, to many copies (through
reproductive means, as in evolution), then reproductive excess is
absolutely required. That is what the cost of substitution is actually
about, and there is no escaping its fundamental demands. The core issue is
utterly mechanical and unavoidable. When evolutionists confuse that issue
(and confuse it they do), then they have garbled the cost of substitution at
its very foundations.

No. Van Valen does not apply the cost issue, not correctly anyway. He
attempts to get around Haldane's Dilemma linguistically, by shifting what
the word "dilemma" focuses on, and by bringing in the "environment", which
my book shows can only make the cost problem worse. (That is, when the
environmental factors are fully and correctly tallied, the total cost of
evolution increases, and makes Haldane's Dilemma worse. Etc.)

******

That is untrue. It's the other way around. EVERY paper my book cites on
Haldane's cost of substitution issue (and there are many such cites) is an
evolutionist in some way 'being critical' of Haldane's issue and attempting
to 'provide solutions' to it. Scott Page misrepresents my book.

My book handles, in one way or another, all the so-called 'solutions' to
Haldane's Dilemma that have been proposed. In one way or another, they are
all touched on.

Scott Page misrepresents what I said. I did not "butcher" Van Valen's
quote. The portion of Van Valen that I did not quote is background that MY
READERS are given in my book, so there was no reason to repeat it and
belabor my readers further. Rather, I accurately quote Van Valen's core
response on the matter at hand: his so-called 'solution' to Haldane's
Dilemma. My book does not misquote Van Valen.

Scott Page misrepresents me -- recklessly.

Since Scott Page previously knew the truth of the matter, he has no
justification for misrepresenting it the way he did.

[Administrator: ReMine mentions in his note that he is too busy to respond to everything in the future. This is understandable with any of the men and women posting here and should not be considered avoiding the issues. ]

 

RUFUSATTICUS

Walter (and Fred), you still haven't answered Scott's and my main question.

Please explain how the assumptions of Haldane's model are not violated by
the biology of Humans. If you are going to apply Haldane's model to
human population, you need to show that we satisfy all[/b[ assumptions of
the model. As far as I can tell, there is some assumption of Haldane's
model that we violate. That is why our biology doesn't agree with the
model. That's far from concluding a recent creation of all life.

This happens with just about every attempt to apply actual biology to
models. Models are simplifications. Real organisms and populations are
much more complicated.

If your book contains passages answering these questions, then it should be
simple for you to cut and past them into BaptistBoard, assuming you maintain
a digital version of your work.

Thanx, -RvFvS

 

DAVID PLAISTED

Here are a couple of references (which I don't really understand) but
which may shed some light on this discussion. Both seem to disprove
Haldane's bound for the rate of evolution, but the first assumes
truncation selection, which seems unrealistic; the second assumes
"multicomponent rank selection," but I don't know what that is:
Population dynamics of the additive polygenic system under truncation
selection Ratner VA, Yudanin AY RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF GENETICS 35 (6):
727-734 JUN 1999


Abstract: Common features of the equations describing dynamics of the
additive polygenic system under truncation selection are summarized. A
combination of parameters playing the role of the effective selective
pressure on the ith polygenic locus was revealed. The product of mean
relative fitnesses of the individual polygenic loci, (W)
over-bar/W-max = Pi(i=1)(n) (w) over-bar(i max)/w(i max), was shown to
play the role of relative mean fitness of the polygenic
population. This value depends on the measurable parameters of the
character distribution in the population: (Q) over-bar, (Q) over-bar
max, sigma, alpha(m). It was shown that under the constant population
number during truncation selection, the characteristic of the best
genotype increases, u = Pi(i=1)(n) p(i)(2); which is also a product of
the frequencies of preferable genotypes at individual polygenic
loci. This value plays the role of the proportion of the number of the
best ("champion") genotype in the population. In fact, this is the
champion genotype polygene consensus pattern frequency, which a priori
indicates the possibility of the champion pattern fixation. The
analogue of Haldane's dilemma for the polygenic system which restrict
the number of polygenes simultaneously subjected to adaptive evolution
(2N(e)s much greater than 1): n much less than 2N(e)ln W-max/(W) over
bar was obtained for the case of constant effective population number
(N-e = const).

MULTICOMPONENT RANK SELECTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO HALDANE DILEMMA
PHELPS FM IMA JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS APPLIED IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 8
(1): 57-72 1991

Abstract: This paper demonstrates that multicomponent hard selection
(hard selection performed sequentially in n independent fitness
components of the genome) is incompatible with observed substitution
rates. It also shows that multicomponent rank selection permits enough
differential viability to account for arbitrarily rapid
evolution. This removes a major objection to the acceptance of 'rank'
or 'soft' selection as a resolution of 'Haldane's dilemma' and
provides firm grounds for rejecting Kimura's genetic load argument for
the neutral theory.

 

SCOTT PAGE

I prefer that Mr.Remine refer to me appropriately, if this is to be a ‘professional’ exchange. He may refer to me as ‘Dr.Page’ or ‘Professor Page’. Since ReMine knows that I possess these credentials, his repeatedly referring to me as ‘Scott Page’ is discourteous.

[Administrator: Scott Page signs himself as Scott Page. On the post ReMine is quoting, Scott Page identified his own words with “Scott Page” in parentheses after each (most of which were eliminated in the reformatting for posting). Thus, ReMine’s reference to him as Scott Page is proper here.]

Do ‘they’ really show the opposite? ReMine refers only to two of the papers I cited, and then plucks quotes from the articles that he can use to concoct the illusion that he has been ‘saying this all along’ and that ‘these ‘ show the opposite of what I claimed they do. The first paper Walter ReMine quotes is obviously referring to kin selection, a specific type of selection. Walter ReMine unjustly extrapolates this into some sort of condemnation for all solutions to the cost ‘problem.’ Indeed, the title of that paper, “Genes, Individuals, and kin selection” indicates what the topic will be, and the first sentence of the abstract, as quoted above, indicates Darlington’s feelings on the matter:
“The altruistic-gene theory of kin selection requires conditions so improbable that its reality is doubtful.”
Darlington goes on to lament on how “evolutionary mathematics and determinist sociobiology” are in error.
Does this sound like a full-fledged condemnation of evolutionary theory? A re-statement of ‘Haldane’s dilemma’? Not at all, and Walter Remine’s implication that it is, is entirely unrealistic.

The second paper from which Walter ReMine quotes, “Evolution:Questions for a modern theory” is also presented in this way.
Walter ReMine sums up the two Darlington papers after implying that they represent all the papers I cited before:
“ They argue: (a) that the cost of substitution (a.k.a. the cost of selection)
limits natural selection. (b) that this has been "ignored". (c) that the
"widely accepted MIS-definition" of natural selection "hides the cost." (d)
and several more juicy points. Those support what I have been saying”
Walter ReMine’s point (a) is non-controversial. Walter ReMine’s point (b) is disingenuous, especially in light of his selective quotation of only two of the papers I cited. Walter ReMine’s selective quotes from Darlington’s papers in no way indicates or even remotely implies that this has been “ignored” – if it had been, it seems to me that the papers I cited would not exist! To ignore something implies that there is an implicit knowledge of that something, and that it is being actively put aside. This i not even remotely implied in the Darlington quotes.

Perhaps. Perhaps Walter ReMine can be forgiven for so frequently claiming to have been ‘misrepresented’ when he had not been.

Is that true Walter ReMine? Did Dodson think that a mathematical model premised on hypotheticals was really trouble for evolutionary theory when applied to fossil evidence? Even on the face of it, that does not seem to make sense. Who puts mathematical models ahead of empirical evidence? You are implying that, as usual, it is Haldane’s model that is beyond reproach, despite the fact that recent evidence based publications have shown that his numbers were off in real populations.

Then perhaps you should write up your astute, evidence backed and mathematically sound observations and submit it via the appropriate channels. I did not say – and have never said or implied – that there is no cost, and neither have any of my references. The only confusion and garbling seems to be coming from those that insist that everyone else is wrong on this issue and that a mathematical model supercedes analyses of actual evidence.

You are wrong, Walter ReMine, and this is precisely my criticism of you as laid out previously – you believe that Haldane’s model is ‘set in stone’, despite the fact that Haldane himself recognized that it was not. As for Van Valen, you REMOVED his rationale for applying the cost issue to the population. OF COURSE you can claim he was wrong when you delete something like that. Again, all we have is your repeated, unsubstantiated claims that Haldane’s model, and ONLY Haldanes’ model, is the right model, and MUST be applied to all populations in all situations. Your book purports to ‘show’ a number of things that are ‘shown’ only by overconfident assertion, such as your claims on p. 209 and 217 that you omitted from your reply. So, forgive me for not simply accepting that you have ‘shown’ this or that in your book.

You misrepresent not only me, but numerous actual scientific researchers in your book and elsewhere! You claimed that in fact you cited 14 papers on this issue. Looking into this, all we see is a series of citations supporting a NON-CONTROVERSIAL claim. In YOUR OWN EXAMPLE, you had written that Haldane’s model allows only one substitution in 300 generations, and cited 14 papers in support of this. THIS is not controversial! You cite these papers to support your claim regarding Haldane’s model, you do not cite them for their anti-dilemma claims. You, in fact, seem to be misrepresenting your book.

If you say so. Of course, you, and only you apparently, are able to show all of the flaws in all of them, and show that Haldane’s original model is all-encompassing and applicable in all situations (despite Haldane’s own admission that his numbers would need “drastic revision”). However, I could not find this information in your book, and apparently nobody else can either.

Amazing – in your previous post, you ‘admit’ that you misquote Van Valen, but that it did not change its meaning, now you claim that you did not misquote it! Which is it, Walter ReMine? What kind of ‘quote’ is it that lops off more than a dozen words from a sentence but does not indicate that this happened? What kind of quoting is done in which the last half of a sentence is simply left off with no indication that this happened?

Well, I guess that is all that is required from Walter ReMine. An assertion.
No, I accurately represent all that you have been saying. Walter ReMine seems to think that ONLY Haldane’s model is applicable and it – in its 1957 form – is universally applicable and cannot be avoided. There is no misrepresentation there – ‘reckless’ or otherwise. Walter ReMine’s repeated and typical charges of ‘misrepresentation’ are so shopworn as to be worthy of only disdain.

Here is what Walter ReMine omits:


“ You do not ever explain or support those claims about the ‘garbling’ and such. The ‘garbling’ comes form the different terminologies employed. But rest assured, population geneticists understand the issues as well as you do, Walter. You say it was ‘prematurely brushed aside’ – surely, you are aware of the series of articles in PNAS in the late 60’s and early 70’s that provided a number of solutions to Haldane’s model? Surely you know of the publications that show that Haldane’s parameters are rarely applicable to real evolving populations?”

In response to this, Walter ReMine picks two of the several papers I cite, and plucks favorable quotes from them (see above).

One should wonder why Walter ReMine decided not to address any of the other papers, and why he quoted only what he did:

Let us take a closer look at the papers in question, specifically the two that Walter ReMine selectively quotes.

Walter ReMine quotes Darlington’s 1981 paper:

"The altruistic-gene theory of kin selection requires conditions
so improbable that its reality is doubtful. .... The probability
of kin selection is further reduced by the cost of evolution by
selection. Much current evolutionary mathematics and
determinist sociobiology, which ignore how the cost of selection
limits the precision of adaptations, including adaptive behaviors,
may be dangerously unrealistic."
-- Darlington, PNAS 78, 4440 (1981)

I have already mentioned the title of this paper. I have also already quoted from the abstract of that paper in which it is made clear that the author is critical, not of evolution theory per se, but of altruistic-gene theory of kin selection.

Walter ReMine quotes Darlington’s 1983 paper:

"The blind spot of the present generation of evolutionists
is failure to see the consequences and limits of natural selection.
Darwinian natural selection is a costly process of differential
elimination of individuals. The widely accepted MIS-definition of
natural selection as differential reproduction mistakenly hides the
Darwinian process and its cost. .... My own 'unhappy conclusion'
is that, because most biologists have forgotten what natural
selection is, much current evolutionary and sociobiological theory
presented by the most influential evolutionists is mistaken and
dangerous. Anthropologists and sociologists are wise to distrust it."
-- Darlington, PNAS 80, 1960 (1983)

[However], from that paper:

“In spite of the cost, complex adaptations apparently do sometimes evolve relatively rapidly, probably by a combination of great selective advantage and acceptance of less-than-perfect adaptedness.”

So, ‘rapid’ evolution can occur. Indeed, Darlington’s example?

“An example may be the evolution of erect posture and bipedal locomotion in prehuman hominids.”

What about Darlington’s 1977 paper, that Walter ReMine decided not to quote from?

“Comparisons of six hypothetical cases suggest that Haldane overestimated the cost of natural selection by allele substitution. The cost is reduced if recessive alleles are advantageous, if substitutions are large and few, if selection is strong and substitutions are rapid, if substitutions are serial, and if substitutions in small demes are followed by deme-group substitutions.”

He concludes that the cost is still such that most organisms are not fully adapted to their environments (contrary to an assumption of Haldane).

What about the Grant and Flake papers?
From their first 1974 paper – PNAS 71(5) 1670-1671.
“Population Structure in Relation to Cost of Selection”

“The ways out of the impasse suggested here invoke deviations from the usual assumption of a large continuous population with consistent numbers.”

“Yet rapid evolutionary changes in genetically complex characters do occur occasionally in various groups of organisms. For example, racial differentiation in quantitative characters in Mimulus guttatus (Scrophulariaceae) has taken place in 4000 years in certain recent habitats in Utah… 4000 generations in this time perod. […] approximately 100 genes would be undergoing substitution in 4000 generations.”

“It is generally agreed that previously rare alleles could be fixed rapidly, by partly random factors, in one or a few generations during the founding of some new daughter colonies, leading to rapid deviations from the ancestral condition.”

From their third 1974 paper:
PNAS 71(10) p. 3863-3865
“Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma”

“Some groups of organisms have undergone evolutionary changes in multifactorial characters and character combinations at rates apparently exceeding those imposed by a tolerable cost of selection.”

A good question to ask, given this information:
What do we do in this case? Assume that the evidence presented to us is wrong, or that a mathematical model is wrong?

This paper is a good one in that it outlines Haldane’s implicit as well as his explicit assumptions, and that by simply altering (premised on actual population structure/data) the assumptions, the costs are altered.

Again, one should wonder why Walter ReMine did not quote any of the other papers when he lumped them all together and tried to claim that “these papers” showed the “opposite” of what I claimed they did…

Of course not. What IS and should be seen as avoiding the issues is how Walter ReMine simply deleted my quotes from his book – which are central to his anti-evolution thesis – which were nothing more than unsupported opinionated rhetoric.

Walter ReMine provides many citations supportive of non-controversial statements, yet cannot seem to muster a SINGLE quote supportive of his anti-evolutionary claims, then he simply ignores the quotes – from his book – indicative of this clearly non-scientific approach.

 

WALTER ReMINE

The above writer, I believe, has not read my book, but is merely relaying
what other evolutionists are saying about my book and about Haldane's
Dilemma. Readers here will therefore get the wrong impression about both.

Contrary to the above writer, my book does not conclude "a recent creation
of all life." I and my book are neutral on the issue of age. Rather, I
argue that Haldane's Dilemma was garbled, confused, and prematurely brushed
aside - it was never resolved. I also put teeth into why it is an
important issue to resolve: by Haldane's figures, no more than nominally
1,667 beneficial nucleotides to explain human adaptations.

A number of evolutionists (especially on the Internet) try to brush aside
Haldane's Dilemma by blaming it on "Haldane's model", which they imply has
something wrong with it, but they do not identify why. They are mistaken.

1) The cost of substitution is unavoidable. If a trait is to go from 'few'
to 'many' copies (via reproductive means, as in evolution), then there is a
positive (non-zero) cost. There is no way around it. Every evolutionary
model has a cost of substitution. Merely pointing at a different 'model'
does not solve the problem.

2) "Haldane's model" (a term which I and my book avoid, for the following
reason) is substantially identical to the model prevalent in all
evolution books today. His notions of allele segregation (in diploids,
haploids, sex-linked, etc.) are, in all their essentials, identical to those
in use today. Moreover, his notions of how multiple-alleles combine their
fitness values when they occur in the same individual is again essentially
identical to what is prevalent today.

3) One assumption of Haldane's - that all allele substitutions begin at an
elevated frequency of one per 5000 diploids - had the effect of lowering the
cost and favoring evolution. This particular assumption may be unique to
Haldane, but breaking this assumption does not solve the problem, rather it
worsens the problem.

I would not be unhappy if evolutionists were to brush aside "Haldane's
model", as it would simultaneously require them to brush aside virtually all
their modern texts on evolutionary genetics. But evolutionists do not do
that. Rather, they try to have it both ways. They try to brush aside
"Haldane's model" (without seriously identifying why), and they try to keep
essentially the same model in all their textbooks. This is a core mischief
I am fighting against.

The fact that "Real organisms and populations are much more complicated"
does not solve Haldane's Dilemma. Indeed, my book shows how the complicated
realities of biology tend to increase the cost and aggravate the problem.

 

SCOTT PAGE

And? Since you did not even attempt to do so in your book, perhaps now you can finally reveal at least a hint of the evidence that indicates that 1667 beneficial substitutions cannot account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor. While you are at it, you should also identify this ape-like ancestor so the reader can assess for him or herself whether or not this “chasm” is too large for 1667 adaptive (and some number of neutral) substitutions to account for. Surely, you can do both, right? If not, it seems that you main ‘argument’ is nothing but emotive rhetoric.

This is a misrepresentation. I provided citations and IN CONTEXT quotes from just a few that in fact point out Haldane’s assumptions and why they are not ‘set in stone’ as well as offering ‘solutions’ to the so-called dilemma.

That is non-controversial. What is controversial is your continued insistence that Haldane’s model is all-encompassing, and that, by virtue of Haldane’s model, humans could not have evolved from an ape-like ancestor given the number of substitutions ‘allowed’ under Haldane’s model.

Why not tell us the rest of the story? Tell us about Haldane’s other assumptions, which are not ‘identical’ to what is ‘prevalent’ today?

You have been repeatedly asked to justify your claim that Haldane used an “elevated” starting frequency. You have repeatedly ignored the requests and simply re-state your opinion that the starting frequency is elevated.

Please explain WHY Haldane’s initial frequency is elevated. Also please explain why the modifications of such models by others such as Felsenstein, Hartl, etc. , are always so terribly flawed, at least according to you.

Most importantly, of course, please explain – supported with documentation, of course – how many beneficial substitutions are required to account for specific adaptive traits. You seem to know, since you write that evolution would require more than 500,000 to “get a sapien from a simian.”

Misrepresentation. The mischief that I am fighting against is making broad-based claims while being wholly unable or unwilling to support the claims.

 

ROBERT RAPIER

First of all, a little background information for those who have little knowledge of Haldane’s Dilemma. Mr. ReMine resurrected an argument that geneticist J. B. S. Haldane proposed in 1957 and applied it to the question of human evolution. Mr. ReMine suggests that Haldane’s proposal places a speed limit on the rate of evolution. Mr. ReMine argues that this speed limit is too low for man to have evolved from an ancestor common to the chimpanzee over the course of several million years. Mr. ReMine builds an interesting argument that is worth consideration. The gist of the argument is that in 10 million years, modern man could have only accumulated 1667 beneficial mutations from a starting point of a hypothetical primitive ancestor. Mr. ReMine claims that this number (1667) is far too few to account for modern man.

A non-technical analogy illustrates the problem with Mr. ReMine’s logic. There is a speed limit on our highways that theoretically limits the distance one can drive in a day. If I make the charge that you can’t drive to Dallas in one day due to the speed limit, would you accept that argument? No, you would probably ask about the location of the starting point. This would be the logical inquiry, because if you were starting your trip from Houston, then you could drive to Dallas in one day. If you were starting from Alaska, then you couldn’t. Mr. ReMine has failed to identify the starting point of the trip from man/chimp ancestor to modern man, therefore it is impossible to determine whether his assertion has validity.

I quote Mr. ReMine from our previous discussions:

“By Haldane's reasoning, all the human adaptations alleged to have evolved over ten million years would have to be explained by not more than 1667 beneficial mutations – nominally 1667 beneficial nucleotides (plus some number of neutral mutations). Those must explain the origin of upright posture, speech, language, the appreciation of music, and all the other human adaptations over that period.” – Walter ReMine, January 13, 2002.

Nobody knows what adaptations the human-chimp ancestor may have had. Here Mr. ReMine assumes that our primitive ancestors had none of these adaptations, although he never offered evidence for this assumption. He also never offered an estimate for how many beneficial mutations we SHOULD expect to find if human/chimp common ancestry is correct. One would expect that since Mr. ReMine is making the claims, he would spend some time defending this assertion. However, to date I have not seem him do so. He has certainly developed an eloquent argument, but he has never demonstrated that his fundamental premise is sound. It is important for him to clarify his position because a number of Creationists have embraced his arguments. Here is his chance to address this issue and demonstrate that his argument is based on a sound premise.

 

JOHN PAUL

John Paul:
The evolutionist brings up a good point. I wonder if he knows that this door swings both ways. If we don’t know what the alleged common ancestor was, how do we know random mutations culled by natural selection will give us what we observe today? For that matter how do we know that any mechanism can bring about the alleged transformations? IOW if we don’t know where there is (was) how do we know we can get here from there?

(Isn’t (wasn’t) the alleged common ancestor a lemur-like organism? Or is that too general and still up for debate? Are you asking Walter for the genome of the alleged common ancestor?)

John Paul:
Assumptions are part of science. Is there any evidence, peer-reviewed or otherwise, that would show that his isn’t a safe assumption? IOW, is there any positive evidence that the aforementioned adaptations were present in our alleged primitive ancestors? For that matter what is the positive evidence that would tell us our alleged ancestors were primitive? (your assumption) Once we establish that then we could have an indication of their adaptations. Anthropology 101…

John Paul:
Are you telling us evolutionists can’t do their own work? After 100+ years of research and the alleged overwhelming mountain of evidence, surely you have some idea. Ya see that would be the way to falsify what Walter is saying. Present peer-reviewed literature that shows the transformation in question can occur in 1667 substitutions or less. Sort of like Name That Tune.
Beneficial is a relative word. What is beneficial for one organism isn’t necessarily beneficial for another. Daniel Dennett said it best; “There is no way of predicting what would be selected for at any point in time.” Then again for Neo-Darwinism to be correct the mutations would have to be random. And in reference to Walter would have to be of the single-nucleotide type (ie point mutations). Do we have any data that suggests point mutations can be beneficial to an organism? How about the information that shows they can accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to an organism that no longer resembles its ancestor? I know the genetic disease sickle-cell anemia (not trait) is caused by a point mutation, but that shows us what happens when mutations occur in vital areas. (blood being vital to humans)

John Paul:
The same can be said for evolutionists and their claims. It appears to me that evolutionists always want Creationists and IDists to do something they can’t/ won’t do under their framework. Evolutionism, being the reigning paradigm and propagated to our children, has the onus upon it. Then all competing theories have the onus to match or exceed what the evolutionists have presented before being accepted as equal or a replacement. Which, as far as biological evolution goes, has been done in spades.

John Paul:
Again the door swings both ways.

 

ROBERT RAPIER

John Paul makes a noble attempt to take on the issue. Unfortunately, instead of attempting to justify Mr. ReMine’s assertions, he merely punts. There seems to be some confusion here regarding how the scientific method works, so I will take a few sentences to explain why John Paul may be confused. This should also help to clarify any confusion he seems to have regarding Haldane’s Dilemma.

I did not make a positive claim that 1667 beneficial mutations can account for evolution from a primitive ancestor. If I had made this claim, the onus would be on me to provide some evidence in favor of my claim. Mr. ReMine made the claim that 1667 beneficial mutations CAN’T account for evolution from a more primitive ancestor. The onus is on him to justify this assumption. You apparently think it is up to me to disprove his claim. If I claim to have been visited by aliens, do you think it is up to you to disprove my claim, or would you expect me to provide some proof? I hope the issue at hand is clear now.

Actually, as I pointed out above, the door does not swing both ways because I am making no claims. If I made the claim that 1667 beneficial mutations can account for the difference, you would be correct. Do you see the difference? The rest of the paragraph is a red herring and not relevant to the matter of whether or not Mr. ReMine can justify his argument. Since that is the subject of my post, I don’t have any interest in going on any tangents until this issue is resolved.

I believe that the lemur-like organism to which you refer was much farther back in time than the ancestor that Mr. ReMine uses in his argument. I think that the lemur-like ancestor was alive some tens of millions of years ago. Regardless, irrelevant to the point of whether Mr. ReMine can justify his argument.

Certainly assumptions are part of science. But assumptions can be good or bad. A good or reasonable assumption should have some kind of logical argument for the assumption that is being made. A questionable assumption would be one with no logical explanation behind it. This is the type of assumption Mr. ReMine has made. His assumption may be good, but not until he explains the logic behind it.

Actually, I know exactly how I would go about trying to scientifically prove or disprove Mr. ReMine’s assertion. I explained my logic to Mr. ReMine early this year at the old OCW board. However, since it would by necessity involve comparisons between the descendents of the primitive ancestor, namely humans and chimpanzees, Mr. ReMine rejected the argument. He said that human/chimp comparisons are not part of his argument, “because they introduce confusion factors”. Since I know of no other way to infer the difference between humans and a common ancestor that no longer exists, perhaps in your reply you could come up with a method.

I will not reply to the rest of your argument, as it is a series of red herrings not relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you could start a new thread if you wish to change the subject? If you choose to reply, please try to stay on topic and provide reasons for assuming that 1667 beneficial mutations can’t account for the differences between modern humans and the human/chimp ancestor. That is the subject of my post, and only after this issue is settled will I be interested in proceeding to additional arguments, or further elaborating on this one.

 

JOHN PAUL

No need to punt when I don’t have the ball…

This should have been obvious. The door swings both ways because evolutionists are claiming humans & chimps evolved from (share) a common ancestor (and humans evolved from some ape-like organism). That is the claim you (evolutionists) are making and why Walter wrote his book in the first place. If no claim were made there would have been no reason to write such a book. All I really want is for evolutionists to substantiate their claims. The claims that were made before Walter made his. That fact puts the onus squarely in the camp of evolutionists. But I do understand why you (evolutionists) want people to think otherwise.

Also I am trying to get clarification on what you (evolutionists) want Walter to substantiate, as it is unclear to me- what you want and what ancestor Walter is saying 1667 beneficial (plus x neutral) is too few. A new candidate was found in Chad:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10/ancient.skull/index.html

The point being its harder to hit a moving target.

I don’t know of 1667 beneficial mutations (of the single nucleotide type), never mind having them accumulate in such a way as to show the theory of evolution is indicative of reality. And as I have previously stated beneficial is a relative word.

I understand my mistake of including the lemur-like organism in my last post. That organism is too far back in the scheme of things. Thanks for the correction.

The logic behind Walter’s assumption pertaining to adaptations was explained- Anthropology 101. IOW there is no reason to infer our alleged primitive ancestors had the adaptations he mentions. The evidence we do have points to Walter’s assumption as being a good one.

The subject is you want Walter to substantiate a claim. I just want people to know that evolutionists ask Creationists to do something they are unwilling or unable to do. IOW there isn’t any way to objectively test the grand sweep of the theory of evolution, including the premise that humans evolved from some ape-like organism (or we share some unknown common ancestor with the chimp). As I have already stated (in other threads), homology, including phylogenic analysis, can be used to infer a Common Creator and/or an Intelligent Designer. Comparing genomes before we have deciphered them would lead to confusion. I have worked in the encryption business and know firsthand that two ciphered texts can look very similar but because of the differing keys used to encode them the clear text is very different. The point being we still don’t know if changes in DNA can give us the great transformations required by the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are too busy telling us those transformations did occur without knowing if they can. You want to talk about unsubstantiated claims then perhaps you should get your house in order first.

I know how science works and I also know that the grand sweep of the theory of evolution is out of the reach of scientific method. I also know that eliminating possibilities because of personal bias unnecessarily limits science and pigeonholes our quest for knowledge.

 

SCOTT PAGE

John Paul:

I had asked for clarification on this before - what do you mean by 'grand sweep'? Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not the 'grand sweep' of evolution, so please explain.

Which possibilities did you have in mind? You see, in science, these 'other possibilities' have to be plausible and have at least some positive evidence in their support in order to be considered. It is "possible" for example, that Pink Unicorns created the universe yesterday and made all of us with our 'memories' intact and such. But is that plausible? What is the evidence for it? I could say that the evidence that exists for the Big Bang, when viewed without the blinders of standard cosmology, provide all the evidence I need. But is that a legitimate scientific endeavor? To merely say that the evidence used in support of one theory is in fact evidence for something else, if, of course, you look at it the "right" way?

 

ROBERT RAPIER

Because there appears to be some confusion over the issue, I want to clarify my reasons for bringing it up. I am actually quite intrigued by Mr. ReMine’s idea. He has proposed an idea that would cause some reigning paradigms in biology to be overturned. For this reason, he is expected to make a convincing case for his idea. Creationists should also challenge Mr. ReMine on this issue. This is the only way to ensure that they are not ultimately burned on this issue, as they have been on other issues. This would also greatly enhance their credibility if they challenge each other on these issues.

The key problem is that Mr. ReMine skips Step 1, which should be to demonstrate that there is a problem, and proceeds to Step 2, where he attempts to demonstrate that there are lots of reasons that no more than 1667 beneficial mutations could have accrued. I am not here to take issue with Step 2. I, like Mr. ReMine, am not a biologist. Therefore I will let the biologists debate Step 2. I am here to debate Step 1. This would be the first question that Mr. ReMine would be asked if he attempted to submit his thesis to a peer-reviewed journal.

After all, it may be obvious to Mr. ReMine that there is no way that 1667 beneficial mutations can account for the difference. Maybe he is correct. But there was once a time that it was quite obvious that the world is flat. All we have to do is walk outside and anyone can see that it is flat. The moral? What may seem to be an obvious truth is not necessarily so. I merely ask for evidence to support his obvious truth.

If Mr. ReMine attempts to submit his thesis to a peer-reviewed journal, he would likely face the following questions during peer review:

1. What kind of evidence do you have that 1667 beneficial mutations can’t account for evolution from a primitive ancestor?
2. By what criteria are you defining a beneficial mutation?
3. If 1667 mutations are not sufficient to account for human evolution, how many should there be?
4. What type of advantages do you propose that humans possess over this primitive ancestor? What traits do you propose it possessed? What is your evidence?
5. Could you give an example for how many mutations might be required to account for one of these advantages? What is your evidence for this?

Those are just a few questions that I can think of off the top of my head, and these are questions for which it would be important for Mr. ReMine to develop answers. This is the way that the scientific method works.

Contrast Mr. ReMine’s approach to that of Dr. J. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshall. Theirs is a classic case of the scientific method in action. In 1983, they published a controversial hypothesis that many ulcers are caused not by stress, but by a bacterial infection. But they did not throw out this stunning hypothesis and say “Prove us wrong”. They submitted their ideas to peer-reviewed journals. They subjected themselves to criticism, but they backed their idea up with data. Initially, their ideas were widely ridiculed. Pharmaceutical companies, who were making millions off of the reigning paradigm of ulcer causation, were especially harsh. But the truth was on their side, and they won over most of the skeptics. Just 10 years after proposing their revolutionary new idea, the NIH issued a statement that their proposal appears to be correct. This is how the scientific method is supposed to work.

[Administrator: the following was sent as a separate Word file as the subject changes. Both responses by Mr. Rapier are here, with this separation.]

Once again, I commend John Paul for attempting to take on this issue. However, to use another sports metaphor, that’s Strike Two! Given two opportunities to address the subject of my post, John Paul has merely attempted to change the subject. His continued attempts to deflect attention from Mr. ReMine’s claims are glaringly obvious. Perhaps that is attributable to continued confusion on his part, so after addressing his (relevant) arguments I will write a second post to explain why he has gotten it exactly backwards.

Once again you fail to grasp that I AM MAKING NO CLAIMS HERE. If it would help in your understanding, just assume that I am a diligent Creationist doing a little peer review. I am looking for data backing up Mr. ReMine’s claim. If you want to change the subject and discuss the lines of evidence pointing to a common ancestor, then please do so in a different thread. My argument is very specific, and addresses a claim that Mr. ReMine made. Again, it was whether or not Mr. ReMine is justified in claiming that 1667 beneficial mutations can’t account for human evolution. His reasons for writing the book are irrelevant, unless you are prepared to argue that he was addressing a claim from evolutionists that 1667 beneficial mutations in 10 million years CAN account for human evolution. At most, evolutionists claim that the number of required mutations is unknown. Mr. ReMine himself has stated that the issue is largely absent from the literature, and this was a primary reason for writing the book.

You illustrate my point very well. If the ancestor has not been positively identified, then how can one claim that 1667 beneficial mutations are not enough? Of course a new candidate has been found. I can confidently state that more candidates will continue to be found, as predicted by the Theory of Evolution. Does Creationism predict that more will be found? No. When one is found, they accommodate it, but they do not predict that certain transitional forms will be found as the ToE does.

Whether they accumulate is not the argument. That’s a given in Haldane’s Dilemma, and I have never even seen Mr. ReMine dispute that beneficial mutations can accumulate. If you want to argue that 1667 beneficial mutations can’t accumulate, that’s a different argument appropriate for a different thread.

I don’t intend to do your (or Mr. ReMine’s) work for you, but there is a strong line of evidence suggesting that many of the early hominids could walk upright. But you imply that you have evidence that Mr. ReMine’s assumption is “a good one”; that our ancestor could not walk upright, or had no other human adaptations. Fascinating. I request that you present such evidence in your next post, or retract your claim.

Your next two paragraphs are more attempts at a change of subject. As the subject of my post is very specific, and my time is limited, I will not respond to these points. Perhaps you should start a new thread addressing these issues. However, I will briefly address two statements.

I always felt like this argument is extremely weak. Do you know the mind of God? Do you limit Him in such a way as to suggest that there is any reason for Him to use a common hominid template for humans and chimps? A much more powerful statement from a common designer would have been to make the DNA of each species radically different, which would have made the ToE implausible as soon as scientists began to make interspecies DNA comparisons.

You continue to insist that it is not necessary for Mr. ReMine to substantiate his claim. The way science works is that he would be expected to provide a logical and scientific basis for it. I issue a challenge to you: Propose a method for testing Mr. ReMine’s claim. If no method exists, then it is a hollow and unsubstantiated claim.

 

JOHN PAUL

Scott Page:
I had asked for clarification on this before - what do you mean by 'grand sweep'?

John Paul:
And I provided you with an explanation on July 10th. As a matter of fact you have responded to it.

Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.

John Paul:
That is not true. Please reference this thread and others.

Scott Page:
Abiogenesis is not the 'grand sweep' of evolution, so please explain.

John Paul:
Nothing to explain as I never said abiogenesis is part of the grand sweep of evolution.

Scott Page:
Which possibilities did you have in mind? You see, in science, these 'other possibilities' have to be plausible and have at least some positive evidence in their support in order to be considered.

John Paul:
Same evidence different conclusions. The positive evidence for design is as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: ”Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”. And then we have Walter Bradley, Ph.D. in materials science; ”Evidence for design comes from three sources: 1) the simple mathematical form that nature takes; 2) the coincidence that the universal constants are exactly what they need to be to support life of any type on this planet; and 3) the coincidence that the initial conditions in many different situations are also critical and happen to have been exactly what they needed to be for the universe and life to come into being.” Add those to the fact there isn’t any evidence to support a purely natural scenario to the origins of life (the Creation account & ID do care about that) and it is reasonable to infer that one of the alternatives is not only plausible but very likely.

If you knew what it was you were debating against you would know it is not merely saying that the evidence used in support of one theory is in fact evidence for something else, if, of course, you look at it the "right" way. Evidence is evidence, rocks are rocks and DNA is DNA. Evidence doesn’t talk, it has to be interpreted. It is obvious any interpretation would be influenced by bias. If you are biased by evolutionism then you would interpret the evidence in that light even though you can not verify that interpretation. If you want to get technical Creation was accepted before evolutionism and therefore evolutionism took the evidence that supported the Creation and falsely extrapolated it to meet its agenda.

What’s the positive evidence that random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the great transformations (as discussed by evolutionists on the PBS series Evolution) that is required if the theory of evolution is indicative of reality?

 

HELEN

I keep getting the feeling that folks are talking PAST each other here!

OK, we don't know what the earliest common ancestor of the proposed human/ape link was. Both sides are using that as a weapon in their battle against the other side.

Let me ask this: in the 1% + degree of difference between the human genome and the chimp/ape genome,

1. how many base pairs does that make?

2. is it fair to say that each of these differences must represent a mutation by one or the other of the human and chimp/ape lines?

3. if only half the mutations were human, how many mutations would that make?

If we can nail down this, perhaps by approaching this from this direction, we can establish a basis of operation as far as the discussion goes?

 

JOHN PAUL

Robert:
I don’t intend to do your (or Mr. ReMine’s) work for you, but there is a strong line of evidence suggesting that many of the early hominids could walk upright. But you imply that you have evidence that Mr. ReMine’s assumption is “a good one”; that our ancestor could not walk upright, or had no other human adaptations. Fascinating. I request that you present such evidence in your next post, or retract your claim.

John Paul:
You misrepresent what Walter stated. From your first post in this thread:
”Those must explain the origin of upright posture, speech, language, the appreciation of music, and all the other human adaptations over that period.” – Walter ReMine, January 13, 2002.

Just because our alleged ancestors are alleged to have walked upright does NOT explain its origin. Now that the Human Genome Project is well under way we might get some insight as to what genes control that function. Once we find the genes that allow for upright posture & bipedal locomotion then we can go about figuring how that evolved. But what happens if we find genes (genome) are not responsible for upright posture & bipedal locomotion?

On Language: (from http://icg.harvard.edu/~psy1357/syllabus/syllabus.html

However the aquatic ape hypothesis aims to rectify this dilemma:

http://www.infres.enst.fr/confs/evolang/actes/_actes24.html

But I would be lying if I didn’t say that this premise looks like support for adaptive (environmentally cued) mutations. But it is good that someone is looking into this issue, but it is far from being resolved.

Without language I don’t know if you could have speech. What is it you want me to retract?

Robert:
I always felt like this argument is extremely weak. Do you know the mind of God? Do you limit Him in such a way as to suggest that there is any reason for Him to use a common hominid template for humans and chimps? A much more powerful statement from a common designer would have been to make the DNA of each species radically different, which would have made the ToE implausible as soon as scientists began to make interspecies DNA comparisons.

John Paul:
I understand design, design standards (which allow different companies’ products to work together) and what is required to allow separate components to form a symbiotic relationship. Therefore I find this argument to be very strong. Imagine what this earth would be like if plants didn’t take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. It just so happens that animals give off carbon dioxide and take in oxygen. Coincidence? Perhaps. But to rule out design for no other reason than to rule it out is wrong. IOW creating radically different life forms may have made coexistence impossible. It would be like designing a computer’s operating system that can’t interact with any applications (no ‘plug & play’). There wouldn’t be a big market for that OS. Looking at the diversity of life I wouldn’t say the Creator was limited. However there are limits in life and perhaps the limited environments on this planet limit morphology. It’s a stretch to say the chimp & human templates are “common”.

This is what AiG has to say:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp

Tell you what. I will substantiate Walter’s claims the day after you substantiate the claims made by evolutionists. The claims made by evolutionists are why Walter wrote the book. If those claims were substantiated in the first place his book wouldn’t have been written or would have been rendered moot.

 

ROBERT RAPIER

To summarize, here is what has transpired:

1. Walter ReMine has claimed that human evolution can’t be explained from a primitive ancestor accruing 1667 beneficial mutations (and for the record, 25,000 neutral expressed mutations).
2. I, as well as others have pressed Mr. ReMine for validation of this claim.
3. John Paul responded to my post, but instead of answering the questions I brought up, he tried to change the subject and asked me to provide support for claims I never made!
4. I continued to press John Paul for some answers, and he repeatedly passed.

I will let the biologists argue over whether or not ReMine’s assessment of Haldane is correct. All I asked for was some kind of rational argument for why the fundamental premise should be taken at face value. As I said, for this argument just pretend that I am a Creationist doing peer review.

There is no misrepresentation, you just misunderstood the point. What Mr. Remine has said is that these adaptations had to originate on the evolutionary journey from primitive ancestor to modern man. My question is, what is the evidence that the primitive ancestor had none of these traits? None of your links support Mr. ReMine’s statement. In fact, it is unknown whether our primitive ancestor had these traits, but as I pointed out many of the intermediates are believed to have walked upright. In other words, this ancestor may have walked upright, therefore no need to originate upright walking as it pertains to Haldane’s Dilemma. More evidence of this is the fact that the chimpanzee can walk upright, and humans do walk upright. Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that the common ancestor could walk upright. There is absolutely no evidence, as per Mr. ReMine’s contention, that it could not and therefore there had to be some number of beneficial mutations to originate it.

Well, since you provided no evidence that an as yet unidentified ancestor had none of these traits, I assume you are prepared to retract the entire line of reasoning. Think about it a little bit and I think the problem with your reasoning be clear.

So, you understand design, and you extrapolate that into thinking you know what God might have done? Are you saying that God is somehow limited to the methods of mankind? After all, I don’t envision him a lab cooking up DNA sequences and saying “Aha, this one works. Let’s stick with the plan.” This seems to be your implication.

Way off topic, but a reading of the AIG reference brings home a very important point - the revisionist history that has gone on since the human and chimp genomes were discovered to be so similar. Before the fact, Creationist’s writings tried to stress that the differences were probably much greater than biologist’s estimates. Most of these articles are still around; do a quick search and see how many are stressing that the differences are likely much greater than 1%. A quick perusal of the AIG article shows that they try to stress that the difference is 4% or beyond.

Just look at what the AIG reference has to say: “If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs”. They ridicule estimates of only a 1% difference, for obvious reasons. Closer similarity favors the evolutionary explanation. Well guess what? The difference is more on the order of 1%, and suddenly Creationists everywhere are proclaiming that this is evidence of a common Creator. Funny that this was not predicted before the fact. The fact is that they were prepared to claim victory if the difference was large, and when it turned out to be much smaller you (Creationists) have engaged in a little revisionist history.

The AIG reference also presents an argument that something can have a high degree of homology and have completely different meanings. They go on to say, “The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!” . This completely undermines the common designer argument. Using their logic, the common designer could have made man and a butterfly 99% equivalent, or man and a chimp 50% equivalent.

There we have John Paul’s argument in a nutshell. For the third time, refuses to address the issue and requests that I substantiate claims that I never made. This has been pointed out to him multiple times, so I will leave it to the objective reader to interpret this. John Paul, if you weren’t interested in addressing the argument, why respond to my post in the first place? As I said, Mr. ReMine’s motivation for writing the book is irrelevant. If he based an argument on a faulty premise, it doesn’t matter that according to you evolutionists have done the same. If you have evidence for this, start a new thread and present it. It is not relevant to whether or not Mr. ReMine’s claim is unsubstantiated.

Regarding Helen’s proposal:

Helen, I believe that this is the correct approach. I have worked up some numbers that I am willing to share, but since John Paul seems to be interested I first want to challenge him to work up some numbers to show that Mr. ReMine is correct. We have debated the issue until I am confident that he understands it, so perhaps we can settle the issue with a numerical challenge. John Paul, can you work up a numerical argument that supports Mr. ReMine in the way that Helen proposed? If you will present it, I have worked up some numbers that I will share with the board.

 

The accusation, since deleted, was previously made on this thread by Dr. Scott Page that “ [Dr. Michael] Behe has done ZERO research on the areas he claims to have
evidence for design in.” This was challenged by the Administrator and termed slander. Page has demanded a retraction of that statement.

A partial retraction can be made regarding what Page probably meant to say. Dr. Behe has written a book, Darwin’s Black Box in which he describes biological functions he considers irreducibly complex. Regarding research for this book on irreducible complexity, Dr. Behe was kind enough to respond to our email request for clarification on this issue as follows:

If Page meant Dr. Behe’s lack of personal research for his book and on the subject of irreducible complexity, then Page’s statement was correct.

However, that is not what Page said. He stated that Behe had done no research in areas he claims to have evidence for DESIGN in. This is a different matter. Behe’s research is in part what led him to be involved in the Intelligent Design movement, as documented in the video “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” produced by Illustra Media, 2002, in which Behe is interviewed.

Thus, the way Page’s statement reads, he is wrong. However in considering what he probably meant regarding the evidence used in the book for irreducible complexity, he is right. We also apologize to Dr. Page for references to dishonesty on his part.

[ July 22, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

ROBERT RAPIER

I recently issued a challenge to John Paul to perform a numerical analysis supporting Mr. ReMine’s fundamental premise. John Paul stepped up to the plate and offered his analysis in the “Chimps and Humans” thread. So, I will go ahead and post my argument for why Mr. ReMine’s fundamental premise is null and void. One of Mr. ReMine’s complaints is that Haldane’s Dilemma has not been accurately portrayed to the public. As I am not a biologist, I am a part of that public to which Mr. ReMine refers. As a part of the public, based on my understanding I don’t really see the dilemma as Mr. ReMine has portrayed it. If someone still thinks that there is a problem after reading my argument, please be detailed in your reply.

There have been two developments over the past few years that have significantly weakened Mr. ReMine’s hypothesis - that humans and chimpanzees can’t be descended from a common ancestor because of an evolutionary speed limit. The first development is that the coding portion of the human genome was found to be much lower than many estimates had predicted. The second is that additional comparisons between the human and chimpanzee genomes have indicated that the similarity is closer than previously predicted. Both of these results will be shown to significantly weaken Mr. ReMine’s hypothesis. I don’t believe that Mr. ReMine would dispute this.

Since the ancestor is no longer available for testing, Helen is correct in stating that we must look at the descendents and work backwards. The most recent estimate I have seen of the difference between human and chimp genomes is 1.24%.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1333730.stm

In a genome of 3.165 billion base pairs, (Source: http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/project/info.html) this amounts to 39.25 million base pair differences. The coding portion of the genome is estimated at 1.1%. Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1304 Due to the similarities between the human and chimpanzee genomes, it is a safe assumption that the chimpanzee genome is about the same size as the human genome. If we compare coding regions, we would expect to see (0.0124)*(0.011)*3.165 billion, or 432,000 base pair differences between humans and chimpanzees. The vast majority of the mutations are neutral, which Mr. ReMine has admitted can accrue very quickly.

Since we actually want to compare humans to the common ancestor, we must split the difference so that we only have half of the 433,000, or 216,000 base pair differences in coding regions between humans and the common ancestor. Mr. ReMine implies in his book that 500,000 such changes are not enough to make a human out of an ape-like ancestor. Sequencing data have proven him totally wrong on this point, as we would expect to see no more than 216,000 total base pair changes in coding regions.

Mr. ReMine has claimed that at most 25,000 neutral expressed mutations could have accumulated. This would require that 11.6% or fewer of the 216,000 consist of neutral expressed mutations. That hardly seems like an unreasonable figure. What about the 1667 allowed beneficial mutations? Everyone agrees that beneficial mutations are rare. To get 1667 (or fewer) beneficial mutations from the 216,000 total would require that at most 1 out of every 130 base pair changes (0.77% of the total) was a beneficial mutation. Again, this does not seem at all unreasonable. In fact, Mr. ReMine states in his book that beneficial mutations are rare. He states “A population of 100,000 is not likely to receive a major one every generation”. He is probably too pessimistic on that matter, but this supports my point.

This is why Haldane’s Dilemma seems to me to be much ado about nothing. Mr. ReMine has claimed that this problem has been ignored and brushed aside. I submit that the reason for this is that most biologists never considered it to be a problem. As pointed out, before recent sequencing data became available, some scientists may have accepted that the dilemma was real. A much stronger case could have been made if the coding portion of the genome was much higher, and human and chimp DNA differed by 4% or more. However, since we now know that this is not the case, Mr. ReMine’s hypothesis can be safely discarded based on the above mathematical analysis.