Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 1 of 57 (5513)
02-26-2002 2:03 AM


I have posted a refutation of Scott Page's latest claims on my web site:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation_2.htm
I've been pretty busy, but I hope to find time to engage evolutionists here when I do find time. Sorry Mark that I haven't gotten back to you, I realize you have posted a few things that I just didn't have time to address.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 02-26-2002 4:01 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 10:32 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 4 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 11:02 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 20 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 3:54 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 8 of 57 (5583)
02-26-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by derwood
02-26-2002 12:21 PM


Scott, I would specifically like to see you address the errors I listed in the summary that I've pasted below. Comments from others also welcome.
* Mistakenly claiming that Haldane based his substitution estimate on the observation of peppered moths (Haldane did the opposite, see Haldane 1957, p521)
* Implying that a large population is a bad assumption for evolution (Haldane did the opposite; see Haldane 1960, p351)
* Claiming that a wild-type allele can still persist in a population even after its mutant allele reaches 100% fixation in the same population!
* Because of his previous error, reaches the erroneous conclusion that a dominate allele does not need to be replaced, which implies it has no reproductive cost.
* Claiming that a beneficial mutation will spread through a population in a sexual species "as well" as it would in an asexual species, even given an environment free of deleterious mutations. I wonder if there is even one population geneticist in the world who would agree with him.
* Claims that Wu's study dos *not* assume human/simian ancestry in its determination of the substitution rate.
* Re-visits circular reasoning by asking why 620,000 substitutions from the Keightley study is not sufficient to account for simian/human shared ancestry, given the 500,000 he believes Remine set as a minimum. The problem is, the Keightley study also arrives at its numbers by first assuming simian/human shared ancestry. Thus, it is circular to use their numbers when contrasting against any arbitrary guestimate of mutations that would separate simian/man.
[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 02-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 02-26-2002 12:21 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by SLP2, posted 02-27-2002 10:32 AM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 11 of 57 (5590)
02-26-2002 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
02-26-2002 6:12 PM


quote:
JP: If Fred reads this maybe he can re-post the graph that shows this.
My pleasure. The graph is from Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology textbook, 1998.
Futuyma believes that "the great majority of mutations are deleterious or nearly neutral". Not neutral, nearly neutral (ie, slightly harmful). It is false to claim most mutations are purely neutral, especially as we uncover more and more examples of non-coding DNA that serves some function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 6:12 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-26-2002 6:55 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 7:00 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 14 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 7:03 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 25 of 57 (12476)
07-01-2002 1:26 PM


I finally found time to refute Scott Page's latest installment in our informal debate:
www.evolutionfairytale.com
I'm still pretty busy, but will watch this thread and try to post responses as best as my time allows. Thanks for your patience.
Fred Williams

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 07-01-2002 3:13 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 27 of 57 (12496)
07-01-2002 5:44 PM


quote:
do you really want to call it the concluding post? I've never seen one of those in this debate.
Good point. My intentions that it will be the concluding post may be short-sighted indeed!
quote:
This is only my opinion, but I think the discussion between you and Scott becomes impenetrable to anyone but yourselves when you focus so much attention on the other person rather than the actual issues. There were a few earlier posts that you weren't here for urging Scott to stay focused on the technical issues.
Thanks, I did see your comments. However, I do think our latest debate does invite outside dialog. For example, Page’s first citation was a backfire, as it is clearly evidence against evolution. This is an exciting point for creationists and should be enticing for evolutionists to try to challenge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by derwood, posted 07-02-2002 12:36 PM Fred Williams has replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 29 of 57 (12569)
07-02-2002 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by derwood
07-02-2002 12:36 PM


Here again is the relevant passage from the citation Page thought supported his cause:
The genomic deleterious mutation rate in humans was previously estimated to be at least 1.6 on the basis of an estimate that 38% of amino acid mutations are deleterious. The genomic deleterious mutation rate is likely much larger given our estimate that 80% of amino acid mutations are deleterious and given that it does not include deleterious mutations in noncoding regions, which may be quite common. [emphasis mine]
A straight extrapolation yields a mutation rate of U=3.4. Using a Poisson distribution from statistics 101, the required offspring per breeding couple to produce a pair without a new defect is B=2e^u. Plug in the mutation rate, and you end up with a requirement of 60 offspring per breeding couple!!! This number is actually extremely conservative as many other factors are ignored. When more realistic (and still conservative) numbers are used, the number exceeds 200!
Evolutionists have no explanation for this. Creationists do. My recommendation to evolutionists? Stop determining the mutation rate by comparing simians to humans. The number of nucleotide differences are clearly demonstrating that we are not related.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by derwood, posted 07-02-2002 12:36 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by derwood, posted 07-02-2002 3:09 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 33 of 57 (12831)
07-05-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by derwood
07-03-2002 10:33 AM


I thought I’d address a few key items here from Page’s latest rebuttal.
quote:
Page: But what does "...cost of recessive mutation is exponentially higher." actually mean? According to Haldane (1957), recessive mutant alleles occur in a population at a rate some 200 times that of dominant ones (p.514). On p. 517, Haldane expands on the costs for dominant and recessive substitutions. He gives the cost D for dominants of between 9.9 and 79; for recessives, D= ~105. 105 is not an exponential increase unless one only considers his low value of 9.9, which the creationist must have done (Haldane put the average at 30). That is, he makes a worse case scenario.
What Page failed to notice is that D for a dominate is based on a starting frequency p of 5x10^-5, while p for a recessive is assumed a starting frequency of .01 (which means huge costs have already been paid to get it there)! Why did Haldane assume a much higher starting frequency for a recessive? He wanted to show that D is largely dependent on p, and wanted to start recessives at a point where they may be recognized by selection (p 514).
Haldane expands on this in his subsequent 1960 paper, More Precise Expressions for the Cost of Natural Selection. On p 358 Haldane writes Thus the cost may be enormous if the gene selected is completely recessive, and it seems doubtful whether completely recessive genes are ever selected. [emphasis mine] (Haldane goes on to say that recessives only have a chance to spread in small isolated populations)
Other things of note:
2) I think it is important to note that Page still refuses to acknowledge that the Wu study assumes human/simian (specifically OW monkeys) ancestry.
2) Page continues to insist that Haldane’s model is premised on evolution being true. This is precisely equivocation, and he is flat wrong to engage in it. Allele replacement is part of the YEC framework, as is selection (which creationists espoused even before Darwin). Page knows this, but would still try to have you believe that selection is an evolutionary idea, and allele replacement is exclusive to evolution. Using Page’s logic, I could just as easily write Haldane’s model is premised on creation being true.
What is ironic is that in the past Page has used Haldane’s model to argue against YEC rapid speciation since the flood! How can Page do this if he really believes the model is built off of evolutionary assumptions?!!! I have always said that Haldane’s model, since it is not formulated on how life originated, can be applied to the YEC framework. When Page and other evolutionists use it to argue against YEC, they are actually using valid logic. That is what led our debates in the past to such topics as adaptive mutations, among others. My point then and now is that evolution has no reasonable explanation for the Haldane problem, whereas the YEC model has several reasonable explanations available to it.
3) Page continues to claim the Rice study is evidence that sex is beneficial to evolution:
quote:
Page: The Rice study demonstrates the benefit of sex (which creationists claim is an 'enigma' and all that) - it helps to increase the accumulation of beneficial mutations while decreasing the accumulation of deleterious ones.
Despite having this pointed out to him now on numerous occasions, he continues to conveniently forget a very important factor. The above is only true when the ENVIRONMENT CONSISTS OF A HUGE FLOW OF HARMFUL MUTATIONS EACH GENERATION! Since a huge flow of harmful mutations is anti-evolution, it is very misleading to claim that the Rice study demonstrates the benefit of sex for evolution. Page’s explicit claim, and Rice’s implicit claim, is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.
Let’s try something. I ask Page to show us how the Rice study demonstrates that sex is a benefit for evolution in an environment where there is a nominal rate of mutation per organism per generation. Feel free to use any rate that does not deteriorate a species. A rate that keeps the genetic load at equilibrium would be fine. Use their charts and data. Show the readers and I where in their data, recombination increases beneficial mutations while decreasing harmful ones when the rate of mutation is equilibrium. If you cannot achieve this, then your original claim that their study supports evolution is intellectual dishonesty and you should retract it.
(I’ll remind Page that anything less than equilibrium is deterioration, which is anti-evolution, which is the only section of the graph the Rice study works! For my analysis, see: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm and page down to "Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection")
4) Questions from Page:
quote:
Page: Other things Williams deigned to ignore:
His erroneous defense of ReMine's claims (re: 500,000 changes...)
I cannot comment on the 500,000 until my Remine book is returned to me.
quote:
His continued reliance upon papers that also assume evolution (e.g., Eyre-Walker and Keightly's paper), indicating some hypocrisy in his position
I think you are the only evolutionist biologist I’ve debated who refuses to understand my point, yet I have been debating it with you longer than any other scientist, so you have no excuse. I do not rely on Walker/Keightley paper for an accurate mutation rate. I have stated over and over again that their rate is WRONG. It MUST be wrong because it is ridiculous to assume that our alleged chimp/man ancestor produced 40+ offspring. Thus, since I conclude that their concluding rate of mutation is wrong, that something must be amiss within their study. Is it their math? No. Is it their data points from sequence gathering? I seriously doubt it. Is it their assumption that chimp and man share a distant ancestor? Yes, I think this must be where the problem lies, and why they end up with such a ridiculously high mutation rate.
quote:
My mention of his ignored Baptist Board posts, specifically, my question regarding his beloved 'X-number of offspring per couple' schtick
Time constraints. If it’s the question you asked in this thread, I’ll try to get to it shortly
[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 07-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by derwood, posted 07-03-2002 10:33 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-05-2002 12:55 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 07-05-2002 1:53 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 36 by derwood, posted 07-05-2002 2:22 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 39 of 57 (12910)
07-06-2002 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
07-05-2002 1:53 PM


Haldane's Dilemma boils down to the required number of deaths that must occur in a population to fix a new allele under positive selection (beneficial mutation). Haldane showed that at best 1 substitution could become fixed in a population every 300 generations. Using conservative assumptions, he showed that the cost for allelic substitution was roughly 30 generations (and thus 30 populations). He then estimated the cost of selection per generation to be about 10% (that is, he assumed that 10% of the offspring would be available to pass on the new mutation, while the other 90% would pay for random deaths, lethal mutations, prudes, ugly ducklings, etc). With 10% of reproductive excess available for the new allele, he arrived at a total cost of 30/.1 = 300 generations per substitution.
Remine then put this figure in plain English. Assuming 10 million years for human evolution (a favorable assumption, since the current number is ~6My) this means at most only 1667 mutations under positive selection occur in 10 million years from our alleged simian/man ancestor.
Where many go astray with Haldane's Dilemma is on the cost issue. Case in point, Page recently wrote this:
quote:
Among the constraints in Haldane's model were weak selection and a constant population size. Many evolutionary biologists (e.g., Felsenstein; Darlington) demonstrated that in many instances, the events that would lead to a speciation event would induce strong selection (as in some peppered
moth populations) and a reduced population size, such that the cost would be 'paid' rapidly and the beneficial allele(s) fixed in short order.
Haldane showed that strong selection is an *enemy* of reproductive cost! (see p521, and plug in a high value for n; in the example Haldane gave, he called intense selection hardly compatible with survival). To illustrate this point it is convenient to go all the way to one end point. Imagine a population of 100,000 asexual animals, where a new mutation has such powerful selection that every organism without it dies. To replenish the 100,000 in one generation the organism would need to birth 99,999 offspring. Thus, the reproductive cost is huge (99,999). Apply this to any mammalian sexual species (say two receive the mutation and 99,998 die). The payment for the 99,998 deaths obviously cannot be paid in one generation (by any mammalian species I know of), but instead would require many generations to rebuild the population to 100,000 because of the reproductive limitations, provided it could even survive such an intense selection episode! (the first generations would surely be on the endangered species list!) By slowing the pace over time, Haldane was able to reduce the reproductive cost to a reasonable level. He showed that cost was essentially independent of selection (p 524).
One last thing regarding Page’s citation. Evolutionists always forget the other side of the coin. Small founder populations are the enemy of evolution because genetic drift will invariably work to *remove* information from the genome. In addition, genetic drift will move many of the low-frequency deleterious mutations toward higher frequencies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 07-05-2002 1:53 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 07-07-2002 2:52 PM Fred Williams has replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 40 of 57 (12912)
07-06-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
07-05-2002 5:33 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
...the model seems the obvious suspect since no significant problems with evolutionary theory have been identified... In other words, even if Haldane's model had right up until the present been considered completely correct, and even assuming that ReMine has correctly applied Haldane's model, the wrong answers it provides only raise questions with the model and its application, and not with the theory.
--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]
Where we disagree is when you say "no significant problems with evolutionary theory have been identified". We're obviously going to have our biases here. I think there is no tangible evidence whatsoever for large-scale evolution and that to me is a "significant problem!
There's the obvious design of nature, there's the fossil record that is remarkably anti-evolutionary, the mutation rate problem as described in my article (note that Hadane's model need not be correct for my article to be valid), and of course, the information problem which is a serious nail in the coffin of evolution. How did the DNA code arise by chance? Etc Etc. There are many significant problems for the theory. Again, I know we have our biases, but when I started researching this some 7 years ago I expected there to be at least some evidence, and was floored by the total lack of evidence for large-scale evolution. It amazed me that I had been brainwashed for over 30 years into believing otherwise.
I've stated before that I don't really emphasize Haldane's problem that much. It's an interesting model that could be wrong (though I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is). I instead emphasize the mutation rate problem that is somewhat related to Haldan'es model but does not rely on the model's accuracy. Current mutation rate data and statisticis 101 clearly contradict evolution in easy-to-understand terms. Here again is my article on this:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
Note to Page: Several studies have substiantiated the Keightley study, more reason why it is unlikely there is a flaw in their math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 07-05-2002 5:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 07-07-2002 3:12 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-07-2002 7:45 PM Fred Williams has replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 44 of 57 (13169)
07-09-2002 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by derwood
07-07-2002 2:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Haldane's Dilemma boils down to the required number of deaths that must occur in a population to fix a new allele under positive selection (beneficial mutation).
Page: Clarification - the number of genetic deaths.
No such clarification is required, death is apropos. The qualifier genetic is not needed.
quote:
Me: By slowing the pace over time, Haldane was able to reduce the reproductive cost to a reasonable level. He showed that cost was essentially independent of selection (p 524).
Page: So Haldane did this? By tweaking his mathematical model? Hmmm...
Page continues to demonstrate he does not have the foggiest idea what Haldane’s paper says. Page implies intense selection is a way out of the Haldane problem, and implies that Haldane ignored its impacts or was mistaken not to accommodate it. Yet Haldane recognized intense selection for what it was, an unrealistic and rare event that actually made matters worse for evolution! (specifically the cost of substitution). I again refer Page to page 520. Notice that fitness is e^(-30n^-1), and intensity is I=30n^-1. As intensity increases, n (number of generations to fix one gene) decreases, causing a logarithmic decrease in fitness! To illustrate this, Haldane gave an example of n=7.5, which represents an enormous intensity of 4. This yields a fitness of .02, which Haldane calls hardly compatible with survival (it means that 100 offspring are needed just to get one without a new harmful mutation). The relationship between intensity and substitution cost really only manifests itself as you start moving intensity above .1 (which is even considered atypically high selection by biologists). That is why Haldane said that cost and selection are essentially independent provided you don’t plug in ridiculously high values for selection. As I said earlier, intense selection is an enemy of reproductive cost.
Finally, Page confirms he is confused on the implications of intense selection when he takes the following quote from Haldane completely out of out-of-context:
quote:
Page: Of course, creationists, in my opinion purposely distort/ignore the real flip side, as for example where Haldane writes:
"Thus it is important that Kimura's theory and my own should not be extended to cover biological situations in whihc they do not apply."
(More precise expressions for the cost of natural selection. 1960.)
And what were some of those situations in which they do apply?
"...in a population of constant size... These expressions were not, however, precise unless the intensity of selection is weak."(same)
I hope I don’t have to scan the appropriate page (p 359) to prove Page is taking Haldane out of context. Early in the paragraph Haldane writes The results given in 1957 are however accurate enough for most practical purposes. Haldane then goes on to comment that Kimura’s substitutional load cannot be readily compensated by gene substitution, because it would require 100 of millions of years. He proceeds to give an example of unrealistically intense selection, then notes in the sentence directly preceding Page’s quote: Organisms which produce many offspring permit of rapid artificial selection only if they can be protected from natural causes of death. What Haldane is saying is that in assumed scenarios of intense selection, it is unrealistic to ignore the impact of natural causes of death, which themselves incur a cost because they reduce the number of offspring available for beneficial substitution.
Page believes that Haldane is admitting that he used unrealistic assumptions, which is simply not true and actually is quite the opposite. Haldane is arguing that one should not apply his model to situations that are unrealistic (Note that Haldane actually used assumptions favorable to evolution, such as atypically high selection I=.1; What if he had used the more generally accepted value of .01? Then it would have taken 3000 generations per substitution!)
Its ironic what Page wrote regarding the above passage: One should hope that the creationists that like to hang their hat on "Haldane's Dilemma" would have read and understood this at some point...
Let’s hope Page finally read the passage and now understands what Haldane really was saying. I would hope a retraction from Page regarding his out-of-context quote is forthcoming

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 07-07-2002 2:52 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 07-10-2002 1:32 PM Fred Williams has replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 45 of 57 (13171)
07-09-2002 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
07-07-2002 7:45 PM


quote:
The process you refer to as "anti-evolution" and define as loss of information is what an evolutionist would still term evolution, since it is still a change in allele frequency over time.
You are actually doing me a favor here by supporting my claim that evolution is not falsifiable!
I have a short article on how the term evolution is equivocated to make it true by default:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm
quote:
For most evolutionists, the first discovered, strongest, and most obvious evidence for evolution is the fossil record. Primary evidence from which we draw opposite conclusions probably deserves significant further discussion.
I actually started one here some time ago. It was a discussion regarding this article I wrote:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm
What occurred in that thread was what almost verbatim what I predicted in the sidebar in my article!
I realize the article is a bit offensive (
), but it is what I truly believe, that most evolutionists both unwittingly and wittingly are employing a sleight-of-hand with the public when they try to sell the fossil record as evidence for evolution.
IMO, if the fossil record supported evolution, punctuated equilibrium would never had seen the light of day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-07-2002 7:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 07-09-2002 7:20 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 48 of 57 (13439)
07-12-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by derwood
07-10-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
If the new allele 'arises' while the possessor of the wild type is still alive, his existence is irrelevant. That individual does not have to 'die' to help fix the new allele, he just has to not pass it on.
Technically it does have to die, because technically for an allele to be fixed every organism has to have it. Non-technically speaking, we are both hairsplitting.
quote:
Me: I again refer Page to page 520. Notice that fitness is e^(-30n^-1), and intensity is I=30n^-1. As intensity increases, n (number of generations to fix one gene) decreases, causing a logarithmic decrease in fitness!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does evolution always proceed via the fixation of only one new gene at a time? Hmmm....
Nice strawman. Haldane’s 1 per 300 generations is an average over time.. Multiple genes can be moving toward fixation, but over time an average of 1 per 300 generations will become fixed.
quote:
I conclude that Haldane's model as expressed in 1957 is largely inapplicable in many if not most circumstance for, among other things, the simple fact that as Haldane acknowledged, it requires a constant population size and weak selection.
So do you agree that Haldane did not believe as you do, and would not claim that constant pop size and weak selection are inapplicable in many if not most circumstance? BTW, nowhere in Haldane’s paper does he think constant population size is a risky assumption for his model. Why do you think it is a risky assumption? Merel'y because in natural population sizes aren’t constant?
Another point worth repeating. Haldane showed that STRONG SELECTION ACTUALLY MAKES MATTERS WORSE FOR EVOLUTION. HE SHOWED THAT STRONG SELECTION PUTS TOO HIGH A BURDEN ON THE COST OF SUBSTITUTION! He later argues that strong selection is a rare biological situation, so don’t extend his model to it. He doesn’t want you to because evolution becomes even less tenable!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 07-10-2002 1:32 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by derwood, posted 07-15-2002 2:06 PM Fred Williams has replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 49 of 57 (13441)
07-12-2002 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by derwood
07-10-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
The quotes are not taken out of context because I am not claiming that my conclusions arew what Haldane meant.
I just saw this. Don't know why I missed it when writing my last response. This answers the question I asked in my last post.
After reading Scott's original claims, I can see how this could easily fit with what he wrote above, that his claims were not based on what Haldane believed. Therefore, I HEREBY RETRACT THAT SCOTT TOOK HALDANE OUT OF CONTEXT, AND OFFER MY APOLOGIES.
Fred

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 07-10-2002 1:32 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by derwood, posted 07-15-2002 2:00 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 07-16-2002 6:52 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 52 of 57 (13659)
07-16-2002 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by derwood
07-15-2002 2:06 PM


quote:
Strawman just like the 40 offspring per couple sctick?
As you are aware, leading geneticist Dr Crow in a personal email exchange did not think it was a strawman, and in fact admitted it was a serious problem that deserves serious attention. It’s a problem that is clear to see, and has hard data to back it. If you think 40 offspring per couple is a reasonable possibility, I think the onus is on you to make a case for it.
quote:
I do wish you would check out - rather than ignore - at least one of the papers I have cited.
Ironically, this thread was started to refute two citations you made! I only have time to refute so much!
Besides, the one’s you posted here were off-topic for this thread. Regardless, they are not that interesting to me. I have told you in the past that Haldane’s model being right or wrong has nothing to do with the mutation cost problem spelled out in my article. Find me an article that counters the primary thrust of my article (that DNA comparison studies are yielding too high a mutation rate to justify simian/man ancestry), and I’ll be more interested.
quote:
And yet there are documented examples of populations exceeding Haldane's model's limit.
Uh, I may be mistaken but I don’t recall a limit to Haldane’s model. In fact, his model works best as the pop size goes to infinity. The bigger the population, the less strain on substitution cost.
Regarding your constant size protest, I think you are grasping at straws. Scores of evolutionists since Haldane, including Kimura, Crow, and GC Williams did not believe it was a weak or damaging assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by derwood, posted 07-15-2002 2:06 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by derwood, posted 07-17-2002 10:57 AM Fred Williams has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024