|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4883 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Fred Williams writes: Glad to help! Independent of whether evolution is falsifiable, the term "anti-evolution" is still a bit off the mark. You might want to try "evolution through loss of information", which you accept, and "evolution through gain of information", which you don't. Percy writes: Fred replies: That would be Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand. It has replies waiting for you. In fact, if you click on your name you'll get a list of your most recent message across all threads - you seem to have tons of replies waiting for you. Lucky for you this is a slow period. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4883 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4883 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4883 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: 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: Ironically, this thread was started to refute two citations you made! I only have time to refute so much! quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Fred writes: Kudos! I hope I can be as gracious the next time I'm mistaken... --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GarretKadeDupre Junior Member (Idle past 3533 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
Where does Haldane account for sexual recombination in his 1957 paper, "The Cost Of Selection"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi GarretKadeDupre and welcome to the fray.
You realize the thread is 12 years old yes?
Where does Haldane account for sexual recombination in his 1957 paper, "The Cost Of Selection"? You realize that this paper is 57 years old yes? Why would you think he needs to? Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GarretKadeDupre Junior Member (Idle past 3533 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
Does Haldane account for sexual recombination in his 1957 paper, "The Cost Of Selection" and if so, where and how?
Thanks for acknowledging my question. {This message has become a new topic - Haldane's 1957 Paper, "The Cost Of Selection"} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : New topic message.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024