|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4884 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma | |||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Entirely true, Joz. Another poster once wrote of Williams continued and unfaltering insistence upon utilizing just a few tidbits of information (Haldane, and the Eyre-Walker papers) under any and all circumstances as "when all you have is a hammer, you try to make everything into a nail."
This is exactly true - all Williams has is a hammer. And he simply contiunues trying to turn everything into a nail, despite the fact that his hammer lost its head and the shaft is splintered. Indeed, it is Williams and his soiurce for all information on this topic - ReMine - that in fat have been misusing Haldane's dilemma. But, you go with what you know, I suppose. Of course, it is far more informative to read my relaity based response to Williams first laughabvle attempts at 'refutation"
'Honest yet mistaken' [sic] Fred I will be tearing down Williams pseudoscinetific gibberish in a day or two. [This message has been edited by SLP, 02-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
The sound of crickets chirping...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Oh, I know. What I foound interesting was that he didn't even stick around long enough to read my reply - which he *asked for* - to his 'questions.'
Just keeping the thread alive. I have noticed that just about every evo/cre board is dead - must be summer...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Only in the wacky world of creationism does a research paper that provides evidence for the benefits of sexual reproduction and another one that demonstrates the failure of one of the linchpins of antievolutinism become evidence against evolution.
Fred's latest argument via repeated assertion - hardly a refutation of anything - will be dealt with in due time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I have asked repeatedly for creationist supporters of this line of reasoning to explain, in clear, unambiguous terms, what, exactly, having X-number of offspriong per breeding couple actually means, and how that applies to evolution.Additionally, does this apply to other lineaqges, or just the human-ape? That is, does the same 'conundrum' (as yet still unexplained) exist for, say, chimps and their close relatives, bonobos? Afterall, they have similar generations times and such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I would prefer Dr.Page, as such a courtesy seems to be typically applied to those with such credentials in a 'debate.' quote: How could I have failed to notice this when I explicitly account for the difference (i.e., "200 times...")? Why a 'huge cost' already paid? What 'huge cost' was paid to allow the spread of sickle cell trait, for example. quote: For example in a founder population, in which the population size would not be constant. Shame that you deigned to ignore the other important segments of Haldane's 1960 paper, such as where he explicates that one should be carefult not to apply his model where it does not apply. quote: I think it is important to note that Williams still refuses to acknowledge the difference between his claims regarding 'apes' and 'simians'. Conflation of terminology makes it difficult to address issues. Perhpas if Williams would educate himself on proper terminology, such issues would not come up. Also of note is the fact that Williams seems unwilling to acknowledge that an assumption of ancestry is warranted by the evidence. I have never claimed, contrary to Williams repeated statements to the contrary, that the Wu study does not assume ancestry, rather, I have repeatedly pointed out that Williams simply mischaracterized their assumption to suit his needs. quote: Williams can repeat this hollow accusation os often as he wishes, and as I demonstrated in my latest refutation, he will still be wrong. Williams seems unwilling or unable to understand that 'evolution' as such is indeed assumed by Haldane. Williams seems to want to claim that Haldane was not specifically referring to evolution on the scale of humans and apes, for example, as his tacked-on criteria show. Unless Williams can show where Haldane specifically stated that he was referring to 'microevolution', Williams repeated charges are simply red herrings. quote: This is a truly bizarre extrapolation by Williams. How can I possibly 'know' something that has simply been co-opted? This is akin to claiming that because Newton was a creationist (of corts) that his work on gravity is the reulst of his being a creationist and that the laws of gravity were worked out by a 'creation scientist'!Are you actually trying to suggest that Haldane was using creationist assumptions? Absurd! quote: Misrepresentation. It is a shame that Williams so rapidly resorts to this sort of activity. I used Haldane's model against creationism to demonstrate the folly of using it against evolution. I have explicitly explained this on several occasions. That Williams is yet again trying to mischaracterize this is not surprising. But this passage is interesting - it seems to me that Williams is implying that only constructs built on the proper assumptions can be used when analysing issues that follow from those assumptions, i.e., only evolution-based models are useful when addressing evolutionary issues, only creationistic models are useful when evaluating creationist claims. If this is so, then Williams will need to engage in a large amount of retraction. quote: A topic which Williams has conceded defeat in, by default. quote: One can only say this if one has completely ignored the documentation supplied to them, as ReMine has, and as Williams is doing here. This is an example of a purely hyperbolic statement. The ONLY YEC 'explanation' is 'directed mutation', a topic that Williams has been wholly unable to rationally defend, and for which I and others have already provided sound refutations of. The evolutionary 'explanations' for the Haldane issue are many, starting with the inapplicability of the model itself, as Haldane correctly pointed out. In addition, the primary reason that creationists like Williams and ReMine have latched onto this, it seems to me, is nothing more than personal incredulity. Under the unrealistic and inapplicable Haldane model, only some 1667 beneficial mutations could have become fixed in 10 million years (as I explain in my refutation of Williams). They simply do not believe that that is sufficient to explain evolution of humans from an ape-like ancestor in that amount of time. Problems: 1. they do not know what the ancestor was, therefore, they have no way of knowing how many changes would have been required 2. even if they knew what the ancestor was, they have no way of knowing how many phenotypic changes would result from the 'allowable' mutations 3. personal disbelief does not count as any sort of evidence.oh - and miracles don't count, either. quote: It is, and Williams continues to fail to understand this. quote: Such charges are common coming from creationists, especially those in Williams' position of arguing on the whole from a dogmatic ignorance. Williams is fixated on the experimental conditions of the study, and seems to believe that the benefits of sex in such an environment suddenly disappear in other circumstances.As such, I am strongly offended by Williams' charge, and demand that if he is so confident of his beliefs, that he should write up a sound rebuttal in the form of a letter and submit it to Science or send it to Rice. Accusations of dishonesty are easy to make, harder to support. And simply repeating assertions is not support. quote: Reading that article, all one sees is the original assertion which has been repeated ad nauseum. Better yet - maybe Willaims can explain why his charges have merit. From the paper, any emphases mine: "In our experiments, we emulated feasible natural conditions by usingmoderate levels of selection relative to population size and background selection, and we experimentally verified that the constraint [equation in original] was met." Perhaps Williams can, by using their 'charts and graphs', actually explain what he means by 'harmful mutation environment' (a phrase which does not occur in the paper and which seems to have been pulled from thin air, considering the authors' explanation of their methods). And, best of all, perhaps Williams can provide - with evidenciary support - those 'YEC explanations for the evolution problems (e.g., chimp-bonobo issue). quote: I provided the quote. Stall tactic. quote: Your implied insult is noted. quote: I did not say that you rely on Walker/Keightley paper for an accurate mutation rate. I wrote - and it is a fact - that you continue to use it in your 'articles' on your satirical website, which I understand is not meant to be taken seriously anyway, despite the fact that you claim that using papers with similar assumptions is wrong. quote: I have asked repeatedly what this claim actually means, and I have yet to read an answer. quote: Why do you say this? Are you one of the many creationists that believe that math is the most important aspect of any pursuit, as does Dembski? What if their application of the math is off? quote: Regarding this particular paper, you at one time made much of their '90% sequencing' of loci, especially when you attempted to use it to 'insult' my data. You never did/could explain whjat the significance of that was. Perhaps you can now? quote: Is it also a time contraint that has prevented you from writing that 'directed mutation' article, the one purporting to, among other things: provide documentation that this has occurred in multicellular eukaryotes? It seems that you had time to write what I have heard is a rather silly article on fossils, but not this one that you claimed to have been working on over a year ago? I cannot wait to read it. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 07-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Yes and no. ReMine goes into convoluted rants when one mentions modern humans and chimps. Haldane's evolution-based model of the fixation of beneficial (adaptive) alleles put a 'speed limit' on evolution. According to ReMine's application of Haldane's model, no more than 1667 such mutations could have become fixed in 10 million years. As Haldane admitted in his 1957 paper, and alluded to in his 1960 paper, his numbers would probably require 'drastic revision', and, as he pointed out, one should not apply his model where it is not applicable. 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. In addition, there are documented examples of organisms evolving at rates which exceed the limit imposed by Haldane's model (e.g., "Population structure in relation to cost of selection," Grant and Flake, 1974, PNAS 71(5)1670-71). Such counter-examples are mysteriously missing from ReMine's book. In my view, this is a case of data controverting the math.At any rate, few evolutionary biologists expend much time on the issue anymore. If we are to believe the likes of ReMine, it is because of a systematic attempt by those 'evos' to hide it from the public (NOT a conspiracy, mind you...). If we are to take the actual papers and history into account, more likely it is because it was realized that as written, Haldane's model was largely inapplicable to natural populations; that some data were at odds with what the model predicted, and as such, the model needed adjusting; etc. quote: The phenotypic characters Percy mentions are an interesting point - issues such as heterochrony are definitely at play here. Many now believe that developmental genes and regulatory sequence played as much or more of a role than those genes that control or influence morphology. Take a (hypothetical) gene that controls bone growth in the axial skeleton during fetal development, for example. If we alter the time during which this gene is turned on, we can effect substantial changes in the relative lengths/widths of bones in the axial skeleton. quote: I disagree with your first point. That the fossil record is not complete should actually be expected. It provides creationists with ammunition, of course - provided that their audience knows less about the fossil record than they do. As SJ Gould said at a lecture I attended, if you know a little about geology and the fossil record, what the creationists say can seem to make sense. If you know a lot, then it is just so much hogwash. The fossil record can, in my view, not in any rational way be seen as evidence for anything like the creation event(s) described in Genesis. quote: A belief based solely upon personal disbelief. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 07-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Clarification - the number of genetic deaths. quote: In a population of constant size in whihc selection for the new allele is weak. Lets not forget the conditions. quote: Again I would ask for the EVIDENCE that applying Haldane's model - as electrical engineer creationist ReMine did - is justified. Specifically, you will need to provide: evidence that the ancestral primate population and all of the descendant populations were of constant size; evidence that selection was always weak. For starters.Oh, I forgot - you will also need to supply evidence regarding the nature of the alleged ancestor and evidence as the required changes that had to have taken place in the intervenining time. Without that information, even if Haldane's model were exactly applicable, there is no rational reason to claim that it 'contradicts evolution', as Williams is wont to do. quote: And yet, this is the same Haldane that ended his paper with the statement regarding the fact that his numbers would need 'drastic revision'..."Enemy" of reproductive cost? What does that mean? quote: Please provide the documentation wherein it is claimed that a population must be restored to its original size in one generation. I will be waiting with baited breath for this documentation. quote: Again, please explain why it would need to be pais in one generation. I wonder if the creatonist has ever tried to apply this to the Flood scenario? Though the selection employed in the flood was not 'natural' - or even moral or logical or rational - we can assume that several million people were killed by the childish thug Yahweh, leaving only 8 inbreeding survivors. I don't know when YECs claim this occurred, I have heard anywhere from the ridiculously flawed 2,500 years ago to about 4,500 years ago. Let's just say that there were only 1 million people alive at the time of the flood, so the 'cost' paid for not being righteous in the eyes of the Lord was 999, 992. How does that mesh up with population genetics, I wonder? quote: Indeed. Of course, if they were better adapted to the environemnt, they would have an advantage, wouldn't they?[/quote] 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).[/quote] So Haldane did this? By tweaking his mathematical model? Hmmm... quote: Yes, the enemy of evolution. But they are apparently the friend of creationism! For was it not you who once wrote that drift and bottlenecks (founder populations) help to explain the issues? Convenient, that. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Shame that the thousands that have relevant educational backgrounds and actually do/have done scientific research in the area don't see things your way.
quote: Obvious to whom? quote: Right - I mean afterall, you can find dinosaurs and humans in contemporaneous strata all over the place! quote: You mean the 'article' on your 'satirical' website? The one which, according to other creationists, is not to be taken seriously and is not meant to convey scientific information? The 'article' which resides solely on your website? The one that you have yet to submit to any legitimate journal for publication? That one? quote: That was quite a litany of "Gee, I can't see how evolution explains this - therewfore, it must be wrong" musings. How did it arise by chance? Hmmm... Maybe if the creationists would stop making a caricature of science, they would stop leaving out half (or more) of the story... But i doubt it... quote: And now you are brainwashed into believing that an ancient superstitious and somewhat plagiarised text written by largely unknown authors during a pre-technoological, pre-scientific time in history is inerrant and "100% true"? Wow.... This brainwashing - how did it occur? I always get a kick out of that charge. When I went to school (1970-1984), evolution was mentioned only twice that I can recall - once in sixth and slightly in 7th grade. I later took an elective course on anthropology and there was a one-week section on physical anthropology. I suspect that most curricula were similar.Of course, we did say the Pledge everyday, during which we were coerced into 'admitting' that the God of the bible not only exists, but that it looks down on our country. And of course there is the money issue... And the oath issue... But by golly - folks are BRAINWASHED into accepting evolution as children! But what is 'large-scale' evolution? It seems to depend on the argument. Sometimes, it is mere speciation. Sometimes, it is the 'split' between genera or familiaes. Sometimes, it 'requires' the acquisition of a 'new body part.' I have seen - and even generated some - data showing a relatively smooth genetic distance between species... genera... families...But I forgot - THAT data is simply a matter of 'interpretation'... quote: Of course not. I wonder - have you seen convincing DATA that it is? That it is applicable in all instances? quote: Yes, an amazing article. From it: "It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium! " Please explain - which you do not in the article, have not in the past despite repeated requests to, and which ReMine still cannot or will not do (see: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000154&p= ) - HOW having X-number of offspring will prevent genetic deterioration. Please explain how this 'prevents' evolution. Please do. For once. quote: Which studies are those? Lets say that you inferrences' based on their paper is correct.Mutation rates are 'too' high. Yet, here we are. What does that indicate? Does that mean that we were 'created' only a few thousand years ago by the ultimate founder population (of 2)? Or does it mean that there are mechanisms at work that we do not yet know about which counteract this mutation rate? I opt for 2. It is the rational, scientific choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote: The individuals with the wild type phenotype do not literally have to die, rather they just have to not pass on their genotype. An individual having the wild type, whether alive or dead, has nothing to do with the fixation of the new allele. 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. quote: I do all that? Wow. Of course, Williams and his ilk continue to simply ignore the papers providing 'solutions' to Haldane's model, as well as those documenting examples that defy it. Easier to stick to their story, that way. I don't imply any such thing - it is one way around the problem. Oh - I am still waiting for the evidence that you NEED to provide in order to make your application of Haldane to the human evolution question appropriate. Until you provide this, your inane prattling on regarding the issue is simply blowing smoke. quote: Yes, Haldane also recognized that his numbers would need "drastic revision." quote: Does evolution always proceed via the fixation of only one new gene at a time? Hmmm.... quote: What is the purpose of 'needing' one without a new harmful mutation? This is all statistical, right? What if the first one is THE one?Anyway, rather than harping on Haldane as is the shallowly educated creationists wont, try reading in stead of ignoring the papers that document some of the problems with Haldane and the fact that natural populations don't often fit the bill. Try, just for one: "Solutions to the cost of selection Dilemma." Grant and Flake (the papers by these authors should be especially intriguing fro Williams and his handler ReMine, as one of them - Grant, I think - is an electrical engineer, so he MUST be right!). 1974. PNAS 71(10) 3863-3865. That is a great paper in that they outline Haldane's assumptions and explain how few of them are applicable to natural populations. quote: Whatever you say, Fred. After all, you always know exactly what "informed evos" think, don't you? quote: Being accused of using quotes out of context by a creationist - especially one with Williams' reputation - is simultaneously laughable and disgusting. I shall first produce Williams' supposed quotes, I shall also provide the actual quotes, and a summary of his accusations, and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. First, Williams accuses me of taking some quotes form Haldane's 1960 paper out of context. The quotes I used: "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." And "...in a population of constant size... These expressions were not, however, precise unless the intensity of selection is weak." I provided these in response to Williams statement: "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." The first quote can hardly be out of context. It is straightforward - indeed, ANY mathematical model should not be applied to situations in which they do not actually apply. The first paragraph of Haldane's 1960 paper, from where I took the second quote: "Haldane (1957) gave expressions for the "cost" of natural selection, that is to say for the total number of deaths, or their equivalents in reduced fertility, sometimes called "genetic deaths", which must occur in a population of constant size before a gene is replaced by one of its allelomorphs. These expressions were not, however, precise unless the intensity of selection is weak." Now, Williams claims that I took Haldane out fo context. It appears that Williams cannot see how an individual can come to their own conclusions. Unlike the creationist, I do not require that some 'well known' charlatan creationist, more oten than not writing well outside of his field of knowledge, provide me with every thought that am allowed to think, and that these thoughts be traced to specific quotes from some document. 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. I have asked for you to provide example sof natural populations that remain constant in size. In usual creationist fashion, you merely omit such requests in your responses. In fact, if you cannot provide evidence that all pre-human populations were of constant size and always underwent weak selection, your application of Haldane to the human evolution scenario is unawarranted. The quotes are not taken out of context because I am not claiming that my conclusions arew what Haldane meant. Now, I am still waiting for the evidence that you NEED to provide in order to make your application of Haldane to the human evolution question appropriate...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Thank you, Fred. Apology accepted. Let's hope that any further exchanges (they will be few and far between - life is catching up and all that) will be of sufficient clarity that such misunderstandings can be avoided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Strawman just like the 40 offspring per couple sctick? quote: "Merely"? How many models retain their accuracy when one of the important assumptions is inapplicable? I do wish you would check out - rather than ignore - at least one of the papers I have cited.
quote: And yet there are documented examples of populations exceeding Haldane's model's limit. Go figure - is it a model problem, or an evolution problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I am aware that you had an exchange with Crow. So did I, about your contact with him. As you know, his correspondance with me indicated that you had somewhat embellished yours. Nevertheless, it is a problem for the mathematical models, not the ToE.Here again, I ask you to expand on this 40 offspring per couple scenario. I have asked on at least three occasions now for you to explain what exactly that means, and each timne you have either totally ignored the post (as on the BB) or simply dodged it (as you have done here). ReMine did the same thing recently, so I suspect that he can't explain it either, but it does make a good soundbite, eh Fred? quote: Klassic Kretin Komedy! Let's see - Would be able to 'refute' it if I had time...Already refuted other citations... Not that interesting... Fred, you are as transparent as ReMine is egomaniacal. No, Fred, time is not the issue. Interest is certainly not the issue - the papers deal EXPLICITLY with one of your pet strawmen!You just don't want to see your fragile foundations shattered. Of course, ignoring them does us all a favor. We do not have to read line after line of hand waving and obfuscating... quote: Hey Fred - maybe you didn't notice the title of this thread? the one YOU started?I can understand how you would want to change topics. But come on... Oh - I am still waiting for your article onhow 'directed mutation' can somehow solve this issue for creationism. I am espcially interested in reading all of the mainstream studies documenting this phenomenon in multicellular eukaryotes (which of course you absolutley without exception must demonstrate) and especially the studies demonstrating that 'the information' required to account for, say, the descent of house cats from the original cat kind is already in the genome. quote: Uh, the limit I was referring to uh, should have been, uh, obvious? Uh, the 'speed limit' Haldane's model, uh, set for uh, evolution? The one that, uh, your hero ReMine used in his,uh, book to claim (with no support) that, uh, 1667 fbms are the max that could have, uh, accumulated in 10 million years? Does that uh, ring a bell? quote: Yes, grasping. However, I am still waiting for you to provide documentation that the population size of all populations remain constant over time such that Haldane's model is applicable.Scores of others, including Grant, Flake, Felsenstein, Darlington, etc., did. So I shall conclude that you will simply ignore the papers that run counter to your position. Common creationist tactic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024