Biotic Message by Walter Remine

[Riverwolf]

We've been referred to a article on another website. The article is called "Haldane's non-dilemma - The Panda's Thumb" written by Ian Musgrave.

That article begins with several misleading assertions. But there is an extremely important portion of the article, beginning after the half-way point, where it says, "How many beneficial mutations?" Or more appropriately, How many beneficial substitutions does it take to transform our ape-like ancestor (ten million years ago) into a human?

There's no "ape-like" anything. Humans are STILL apes.

Like I said, if a phenomenon is readily observable, as evolution is, then any dilemma that might exist would simply point to a misunderstanding of the factually existent phenomenon, not its nonexistence.

The article pretends that evolutionary geneticists have agreement on the answer (say, a ballpark figure) -- when they have not remotely arrived at any such agreement. This issue (central to Haldane's Dilemma) remains grossly under-discussed.

The article further pretends there is a long history (since 1957) of evolutionists grappling with this central issue: How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient? There exists little history of it in the literature. The little discussion was almost always given cryptically, and effectively concealed the size of the problem. The discussions typically refer to "substitutions per generation" For example, "six substitutions per generation." That handling effectively hid the problem for sixty years. With such handling, the general public (and even evolutionary geneticists) could not tell if there was a problem, or not. The magnitude of the problem could not be seen. They should have been explicitly discussing "How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient?" But such discussion scarcely occurred. The article pretends that such discussion was robust and engaging, when it wasn't.

The article makes a limp attempt at addressing the central issue: How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient? But it makes several key mistakes, outlined here.

1) The key issue is not the difference between modern chimps and modern humans. Rather, the issue is the number of beneficial substitutions needed to create a human from some plausible ape-like ancestor (ten million years ago, or some other suitable starting point).

2) The tally must include all the required beneficial substitutions. The article dramatically miscalculates (and under-estimates) the number required.

For example, to change a given gene from starting-point (ape) to ending-point (human) might well require hundreds of beneficial substitutions, not just one. The article assumes just one substitution is required, on average. If a given gene requires separately, say, one insertion, two deletions, three point mutations, and four relocations within the genome, then, in this example, it would require at least ten beneficial substitutions. The article completely failed to include these.

As another example, the article treated "regulatory genes" as a separate issue, separate from those that code for proteins. But they are essentially the same to Haldane's Dilemma. If they are beneficial substitutions, then they are limited by Haldane's Dilemma. They must be tallied in the total number required.

The article did not calculate the total number of beneficial substitutions required. Rather, it employed mischievous means to underestimate the total required.

That article is a fair step forward, by addressing the central issue. But the article does not represent the evolutionary literature, where this issue is scarcely discussed at all, and especially rarely in explicit terms. Instead, for sixty years, evolutionists claimed Haldane's Dilemma was "solved". As ReMine says, Haldane's Dilemma is a scandal.

Quite a few accusations, you've got there.

Where's your sources? Please no Creationist sources; those don't count; give scientific sources.

 

[Ouroboros]

That article is a fair step forward, by addressing the central issue. But the article does not represent the evolutionary literature, where this issue is scarcely discussed at all, and especially rarely in explicit terms. Instead, for sixty years, evolutionists claimed Haldane's Dilemma was "solved". As ReMine says, Haldane's Dilemma is a scandal.

What about Van Valen's article in 1963 then? That's not good enough either?

The American Naturalist © 1963 The University of Chicago
Abstract:
A solution to Haldane's dilemma (the cost to the population of natural selection) is provided by general adaptations and other changes that increase the mean population fitness. This permits rapid adaptive genetic change under some circumstances. A simple quantitative model of the genetic load due to heterosis is presented, and it is concluded that nonadditive interlocus interaction is the most probable means for preventing this load from being excessive.

Voll 97, No 894, if you're interested in looking it up.

 

[Science For Creation]

Dear Ouroboros,

You recommended a particular essay from year 2007, "for anyone who is honestly serious" about this issue. I responded to that essay in some detail. You did not discuss any of it in your response, instead you cite yet a different paper (from 1963!). Did you intend to change the subject? Or, perhaps the 2007 essay really isn't "for anyone who is honestly serious" about this issue.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dear Ouroboros,

You recommended a particular essay from year 2007, "for anyone who is honestly serious" about this issue. I responded to that essay in some detail. You did not discuss any of it in your response, instead you cite yet a different paper (from 1963!). Did you intend to change the subject? Or, perhaps the 2007 essay really isn't "for anyone who is honestly serious" about this issue.

Well, you basically are saying none of the articles are good enough for you. There's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. I feel that all those articles I linked to are quite enough to see that there's no dilemma at all. You might think there is, but there isn't. And there's nothing I can add to those articles. Your response didn't really change anything of my opinion. Other people can make up their own minds. I just wanted to make sure people know there are several articles written on this "dilemma" already, and all conclude that Haldane's thesis was incomplete.

Another problem I see with this "dilemma" is that we have genetic code from H. neanderthalis and can compare it to modern humans (H. sapiens), and they differ in 100,000 different places. And we are related, because some 20% (I think it is) of humans share ancestry with H. n., yet in much less time than evolution from a common ape ancestor. According to the dilemma, this can't be. We can't have 1667 unique or beneficial mutations in 10 million years according to the dilemma, so how can we have 100,000 unique mutations in 1 million years?

And again, Haldane admitted that his numbers had to be revised. Based on the evidence, we know his numbers were wrong. The articles I gave you contained some corrected numbers (needed differences between humans and apes), but obviously there's nothing that could convince you otherwise. Your responses are pretty much "I don't think so" or "I don't agree" or "No, his wrong". Well... Haldane knew he was off and needed revision, and he was right in that. The other articles, they're getting closer to the truth. ReMine, not so much. That's my opinion. And btw, I don't believe in the Global Evil-utionist Conspiracy. Sorry.

Oh, btw, I just read a little about the evolution of teosinte to maize (modern corn). The genome has changed drastically in 10,000 years, but only 5 basic genes are the major different between them. In essence, 1 major beneficial gene per 2,000 years in that case. That means in 10,000,000 years, you can have 5,000 beneficial genes. Totally possible. And that's just in simple plant. So how is this a dilemma when nature shows us otherwise?

 

[Science For Creation]

there are several articles written on this "dilemma" already, and all conclude that Haldane's thesis was incomplete.

Haldane's "thesis" is not the issue. The issue is the problem now known as Haldane's Dilemma. And that problem was never solved. You seem to view Haldane-the-person and his 1957 paper, as the beginning and ending of this issue, when it's not. There's an important problem to be solved, and evolutionists never solved it.

Haldane admitted that his numbers had to be revised.

That does not solve Haldane's Dilemma. All of Haldane's assumptions were wildly in favor of evolution (see the article at CreationWiki.org, which lists Haldane's assumptions). Yes, Haldane's numbers must be "revised", and that will make the revised problem worse for evolutionists.

The only serious "solution" evolutionists have is to use unrealistic selection models (such as truncation selection) that are even more wildly unrealistic in favor of evolution than what Haldane used. Their models are so unrealistic that evolutionists do not even defend them as realistic. Their models are, in effect, mathematical or computer curiosities that do not apply to biological nature. Evolutionists claim those as a "solution," but abandon those in all other discussions. In other words, it's not a solution.

Another problem I see with this "dilemma" is that we have genetic code from H. neanderthalis and can compare it to modern humans (H. sapiens), and they differ in 100,000 different places. ... yet in much less time than evolution from a common ape ancestor. According to the dilemma, this can't be. We can't have 1667 unique or beneficial mutations in 10 million years according to the dilemma, so how can we have 100,000 unique mutations in 1 million years?

There is no contradiction between your Neanderthal figures and Haldane's Dilemma.

Haldane's Dilemma places a limit on the beneficial substitution rate. It does not limit the rate of neutral or harmful substitutions, so those rates can be vastly faster. You falsely assumed the genetic differences between Neanderthals and modern humans represent beneficial substitutions. It has not been shown those are beneficial. (Neither has it been shown those are substitutions -- fixations made to an entire population -- rather than mere polymorphisms -- or severely incomplete substitutions -- present in the one or two Neandethal specimens they measured.)

I just read a little about the evolution of teosinte to maize (modern corn). The genome has changed drastically in 10,000 years, but only 5 basic genes are the major different between them. In essence, 1 major beneficial gene per 2,000 years in that case. That means in 10,000,000 years, you can have 5,000 beneficial genes. Totally possible. And that's just in simple plant. So how is this a dilemma when nature shows us otherwise?

Why are you yourself inventing solutions to Haldane's Dilemma? For sixty years evolutionists claimed the problem was "solved". By now anyone should be able to point to the solution, rather than making these up on the fly, as you are doing. You've tried it twice in your latest post: once with Neanderthal, and again with corn.

There is no contradiction between your corn figures and Haldane's Dilemma.

The problem -- known as Haldane's Dilemma -- focuses on the reproduction rate of the species. The reproduction rate is a central data point in the technical mechanics of the problem. The problem is most acute in species with low reproduction rates and long generation times -- such as the higher vertebrates. Haldane's estimate -- of 300 generations per beneficial substitution -- is specifically for those organisms. Humans, elephants, whales, bears, cows, for example. Not corn, which has a short generation time plus super high reproduction rate, especially when aided by people, farmers, breeders, who perform artificial selection on the corn. For this reason, corn is not a counter-example to Haldane's Dilemma.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why are you yourself inventing solutions to Haldane's Dilemma? For sixty years evolutionists claimed the problem was "solved". By now anyone should be able to point to the solution, rather than making these up on the fly, as you are doing. You've tried it twice in your latest post: once with Neanderthal, and again with corn.

So you didn't want a discussion, you just want references to articles? You confuse me. First you complain that I didn't respond to you but only gave you links to articles, and now you complain that I give my own input instead of articles. Whatever. I do have more articles and material to read, and there's more I could point to in the ones I already provided, but who cares. You know best...

Btw, 10,000,000 years. About 15 years between each generation. (Based on fertility of chimps, which is around 14-15 yo.) That makes 666666 generations. If you only need 300 generations per beneficial mutation. That makes 2222 beneficial mutations. How many did you need between apes and humans? What's the number? And what constitutes "beneficial" mutation as opposed to neutral?

 

[Science For Creation]

Dear Ouroboros,

You feel Haldane's Dilemma has been solved?

I already responded to the 2007 Ian Musgrave internet essay you cited. I even commended it for addressing a central under-discussed issue in the evolutionary literature: How many beneficial substitutions are required? I showed how Musgrave grossly underestimated the number required. And, more importantly, there is little explicit discussion, and no general agreement among evolutionary geneticists about the number required. In other words, Haldane's Dilemma was never solved.

But you didn't respond to that. Instead you immediately changed the subject by citing yet another article (from 1963!) that had no bearing on what I or Musgrave said. Then you invented two supposed counter-examples to Haldane's Dilemma (one involving Neanderthals, and one involving corn), both of which proved erroneous.

Perhaps some headway can be made by your reading, and discussing, the article at CreationWiki.org It was written by Walter ReMine. Perhaps you can show where ReMine is mistaken?

 

[Riverwolf]

How many beneficial substitutions are required?

Define "beneficial".

Perhaps some headway can be made by your reading, and discussing, the article at CreationWiki.org It was written by Walter ReMine. Perhaps you can show where ReMine is mistaken?

Any article on any site called "CreationWiki.org" is questionable at best.

 

[McBell]

I don't think you read the other articles that I linked to.

I will be most surprised if he does.

 

[Ouroboros]

But you didn't respond to that. Instead you immediately changed the subject by citing yet another article (from 1963!) that had no bearing on what I or Musgrave said. Then you invented two supposed counter-examples to Haldane's Dilemma (one involving Neanderthals, and one involving corn), both of which proved erroneous.

So, I shouldn't give you and article and I shouldn't respond with my own thoughts. Got it.

Don't bother respond. I don't care much for engaging with conspiracy theorists. Buh-bye.

 

[Ouroboros]

I will be most surprised if he does.

The biggest problem is that it doesn't matter what kind of counter argument is made in this case because it's never enough and never "correct". It's easily dismissed with the "I don't agree" or "I don't think so" responses. The true dilemma here is rather that the "dilemma" won't go away. If it's consistently touted as "not resolved" regardless of any explanation, people will think there's still an issue. "Evolutionists" don't think there's a dilemma since several articles already have explained that it all depends on different conditions. It's not an all-cases scenario. And when an electric engineer is the one representing the forefront of the "dilemma" crowd against biologists and geneticists... well... I think I rather trust the geneticists for what they have found to be true than an EE. (Not dismissing the knowledge EEs have though. They're pretty good at wht they're doing, but it doesn't mean a degree in EE makes someone always right.)

 

[McBell]

The biggest problem is that it doesn't matter what kind of counter argument is made in this case because it's never enough and never "correct". It's easily dismissed with the "I don't agree" or "I don't think so" responses. The true dilemma here is rather that the "dilemma" won't go away. If it's consistently touted as "not resolved" regardless of any explanation, people will think there's still an issue. "Evolutionists" don't think there's a dilemma since several articles already have explained that it all depends on different conditions. It's not an all-cases scenario. And when an electric engineer is the one representing the forefront of the "dilemma" crowd against biologists and geneticists... well... I think I rather trust the geneticists for what they have found to be true than an EE. (Not dismissing the knowledge EEs have though. They're pretty good at wht they're doing, but it doesn't mean a degree in EE makes someone always right.)

Seems to me some people are not the least bit interested in truth or facts.
Some of them even grab onto something like a dog with a bone and simply refuse to let go.

 

[Ouroboros]

Some of them even grab onto something like a dog with a bone and simply refuse to let go.

I think it's human nature, and I'm guilty of it quite a bit.

 

[Science For Creation]

So, I shouldn't give you an article and I shouldn't respond with my own thoughts. Got it.

A solution to Haldane's Dilemma doesn't exist. (Not yet anyway.) That's why you can't cite the evolutionary literature for an answer. And you're own thoughts fail, largely because of the confusion predominant still in the evolutionary literature on this subject. It's not your fault.

Don't bother responding. I don't care much for engaging with conspiracy theorists. Buh-bye.

When you can't find a solution to Haldane's Dilemma, you falsely accuse your opponent of being a "conspiracy theorist." Your bag of tricks is empty.

 

[Ouroboros]

Did I link this article before? If not, here it is again: Haldane's Dilemma

 

[Science For Creation]

Dear Ouroboros,

You are turning increasingly to attacks on my character, and to misrepresentations of what I said. Should I be impressed when you repeatedly misrepresent what I said? Do you seriously think anyone would be persuaded by that?

Your discussion is devolving to one bald assertion: You trust evolutionists, and you distrust any opponents. In other words, your issue is trust, not science.

Evolutionists don't think there's a dilemma since several articles already have explained that it all depends on different conditions. It's not an all-cases scenario.

You're saying there's not one solution, but many solutions, each for a different situation -- there's not "an all-cases scenario". You're introducing more confusion (and evasion), but it still doesn't solve Haldane's Dilemma. Evolutionists should, at the very least, be able to give at least one solution to Haldane's Dilemma that works, say, under one specific scenario. Start there. You can't do it.

For example, truncation selection is an "all-cases scenario". It is awkward to invoke truncation selection as a solution in one scenario, without it being present in all scenarios. On what basis would truncation selection be present in one scenario, and not in another?

(In actual fact, truncations selection is not present in natural scenarios because it's unrealistic. It exists only in mathematics, and computer simulations, and in theorist's minds -- not in nature. That is why evolutionary geneticists do no embrace it as realistic. They give truncation selection as a "solution to Haldane's Dilemma", and then otherwise abandon it.)

 

[Riverwolf]

A solution to Haldane's Dilemma doesn't exist. (Not yet anyway.) That's why you can't cite the evolutionary literature for an answer. And you're own thoughts fail, largely because of the confusion predominant still in the evolutionary literature on this subject. It's not your fault.

I've never read evolutionary literature, nor am I familiar at all with biological terminology.

I just observe things and discuss with learned people. That's all that was needed to convince me that no dilemma exists.

Besides, even if this dilemma were existent, how would that in any way be an indication that evolution doesn't happen?

Furthermore, I ask again: how would you define "beneficial"?

 

[Ouroboros]

Furthermore, I ask again: how would you define "beneficial"?

And to throw another wrench into the midst, there are some evidence showing that the differences between humans and chimps aren't all that great. Some of the genetic difference that makes us human might be the reason to why we are more susceptible to autism and cancer.

Human-chimp genetic differences: New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases -- ScienceDaily

So what's a beneficial mutation if it makes us human but also makes us sick?

 

[Riverwolf]

And to throw another wrench into the midst, there are some evidence showing that the differences between humans and chimps aren't all that great. Some of the genetic difference that makes us human might be the reason to why we are more susceptible to autism and cancer.

Human-chimp genetic differences: New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases -- ScienceDaily

So what's a beneficial mutation if it makes us human but also makes us sick?

Physically, we are quite pathetic in comparison to other animals. Especially ever since we became domesticated.

 

[McBell]

A solution to Haldane's Dilemma doesn't exist.

The problem is that the only ones who think this "dilemma" exists are those who do not know enough about evolution to have an honest discussion on evolution with.