Haldane's 1957 Paper, "The Cost Of Selection"

As the old thread (Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma) is now closed and you have repeated your question here: I'll repeat my reply in Message 56 on the old thread: After which you repeated your question in Message 57: Admin has posted an on-line copy of the paper, so you can read it yourself and see.But I am curious why you are interested in this paper. What is your point here? You've made three posts to date and they are all the same question. You are welcome.Enjoy

Correct, and for several reasons: (1) you had not said anything about actually reading the paper, (2) you hadn't (and still haven't) given any reason for your interest in such an old outdated paper, (3) because it is purported to be a mathematical model that was likely inaccurate (and is, as has been noted in Percy's post, Message 7), (4) I didn't want to invest much of my personal time on it because (5) Haldane is not a name I invest a lot of trust in. So? What is the problem whether he does or doesn't?You do realize, I hope, that mathematical models are useful only so far as they actually model reality, and that when there is a difference between reality and the model it is the model that is wrong, either in it's structure or in it's parameters and assumptions (and again this is shown to be the case here, see Percy's post, Message 7). You mean this page: Haldane's Dilemma?There has been some discussion here regarding this, but again it is just math vs reality, and whenever there is a difference between model and reality, reality wins every time. You are aware, I trust, of the story regarding an aeronautical engineer that 'proved' that bumblebees cannot fly, yes? Do you think the bees would suddenly start dropping out of the sky if they read the paper? So it is probably bunk, like a lot of purported religious sites trying to shoehorn science into religions beliefs. If you want to have some fun you can post those assertions, along with reference to the pertinent Haldane papers, and we can evaluate them for how they stand up to reality.Now if you want to learn more about actual evolution arguments -- in order to be better prepared to discuss evolution in a debate -- I can recommend this excellent site:An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution Well I can't help you there -- I don't know of a single 'good' site for YEC arguments that aren't fatally flawed in one or more ways.The basic reason they fail is that the objective empirical evidence shows the earth actually is old, and denying the massive evidence of this rather pertinent detail is delusional. If you want to discuss this issue in more detail (and I advise you do, before proceeding to make silly statements) I suggest you read through the first couple of posts on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have on that thread.Enjoy.

Nice html coding, but dBcodes work better here: Error prone.The biggest issue I have with YEC beliefs is that all the evidence shows that the earth is actually very very old (4.55 billion plus years), and thus any discussion of a younger age has\uses false information and ignores\denies objective empirical evidence. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.There are similar problems with misrepresentations of evolution. See Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.. Which is neither here nor there when it comes to evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. If you learn what evolution is really is and how it works you may find that it is not much of an issue -- as many Christians have found before.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clarity/subtitle/added links