Are mutations enough to explain natural selection?

quote:

---

And thus, genetic redundancies defy evolutionism.

---

It's a double-edged sword. Your evidence clearly shows selection did not produce the redunancies. Furthermore, such redundancy cries out design!In my field of work, harldy anyone buys non-redundant products anymore because reliability and up-time is so important. More than 90% of our directors are sold with fully redundant components (http://www.mcdata.com).FYI, redundancy is not achieved via simple design, it at least triples the complexity required to make it work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course, one doesn't need any knowledge of DNA to understand that evolution occurs.

---

LOL!Translation: "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
We’ve debated here many times whether or not there are any mutations that add new, useful information to a population. Evolutionists struggle to provide examples, and of those provided I have yet to see a provocative one. Yet there should be a myriad of water-tight examples for evolution to be true.

---

We've asked here many times for creationists to explain to all us wrong-headed evos how, exactly, we should find these information-adding mutations, should they exist. And have received not a single answer.
A "counter" theory has been promoted - prosyletized, if you will - by a number of creationists, including Borger, Spetner, and even Williams - that of non-random mutation. Indeed - Williams claimed to be writing an article for his website over a year ago that would contain some of the evidence for this phenomenon.
As so many strongly advocate this notion, there must be a large and growing cache of evidence for it.
Yet none exists. Hence, no article.
Borger claims to see evidence for it all over, but his 'explanations are simply too zany to warrant attention ('so non-random they appear random...').

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gzus: Sure, the bird that caught 9 fish would survive just as the bird that caught 10, but that's a positive step. the important fact is that 'bird 10' survives, hence his mutated gene survives. he breeds with the other birds until the gene becomes common among the population.

---

​

This is simply nonsense. You start by agreeing with Eximius that there is no selective value, then you turn around and say there *is* selective value!

---

Williams' "interpretation" is what seems to be nonsense. Nowhere does Gzus say anything about selective value. Is this just a red herring?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gzus: The important fact is that 'bird 10' survives, hence his mutated gene survives. he breeds with the other birds until the gene becomes common among the population.

---

​

Again, this is nonsense,

---

Not at all.

quote:

---

First, if the mutation is neutral (which part of Gzus agrees is ) then the odds it survives and fixates[sic] in a population is equal to its initial frequency, according to evolutionists. So in a population of 100,000, the odds are 1 in 100,000 it will survive and fix. You both act as if it’s unity.

---

That does not appear to be so obvious. They appear to be discussing hypotheticals, which is what one does on an internet discussion baord. I understand that many creationists actually think- or perhaps hope - that internet discussion boards are fora for the discussion of groundbreaking science, but that is not the case.
Look at Borger's posts, for example.
Lets not go and append intentions and implications without merit.

quote:

---

What if it does have a selective value? Evolutionists typically consider the odds of a beneficial mutation surviving to be 1 in 50. This is an underestimate because this assumes an atypically high selective value of .1 (Gaylord Simpson believes the average positive selection value is .01). Using the more reasonable selective value the odds are 1 in 500.

---

Please explain to us all how, exactly, this is an overestimate. Please provide the relevant and up to date documentation as well. Simple assertions do not suffice.
By the way - GG Simpson was a paleontologist who died in 1984.

quote:

---

But that is not the only problem. The rate at which a mutation can fix in a population is governed by its capacity for reproduction.

---

A mutation does not reproduce.

quote:

---

Using all kinds of favorable assumptions, the renowned evolutionist Haldane showed that in vertebrates, at most just 1 beneficial mutation could fixate in a population once every 300 generations!

---

Please explain - with supporting documentation, of course - that Haldane used "all kinds of favorable assumptions." Your mentor, ReMine, made the same claim (which you are obviously just parroting). He was repeatedly and directly asked to justify this claim. And he and did what any egomaniacal propagandist with no legitimate answer does - he simply ignored the questions. (see http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_top... for one example).Perhaps you can carry the torch for Walter and finally provide an explanation for this assertion.
Thanks.

quote:

---

Where does all this lead? To one inescapable conclusion: Evolution is one big fairytale.

---

In reality, this leads one to question why the creationist feels the need to use old sources and refuses to support their actual positive claims.**********************************
One falsification of the "favorable assumption" schtick is provided in the link above:==================================
Another interesting paper on "Haldane's Dilemma" is
Smith, J.M., 1968. "Haldane's Dilemma" and the Rate of Evolution. Nature 219:1114-1116.One of the points he makes is that Haldane's calculations assume the independent action of genes on the phenotype, i.e. he assumes that genes act independently on the fitness of the organism. Smith points out that this is generally not true, in fact it is rather exceptional that two character traits do act completely independently. In other words, the '1667 substitutions' case is a worst case scenario: 1667 is the number of substitutions that could occur in genes which, in their effect on the genotype, are independent (a condition which is not often met in nature).
I'll post more on this when I have more time...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-02-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course, one doesn't need any knowledge of DNA to understand that evolution occurs.

---

​

LOL!

​

Translation: "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind!"

​

---

Leave it up to the creationist to ignore context AND engage in projection at the same time.....[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-02-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
The rate at which the population can return to its initial size is primarily governed by the number of offspring the organisms can produce per generation.

---

Emphasis mine.I was not aware that a population's goal would be to return to its original size. Perhaps you can produce some documentation for this? or better yet, some observation of laboratory experimentation that demonstrates this?
Is this (a return to the original population size) a factor in the numbers you like to bandy about?

quote:

---

Thus, there are a certain number of deaths per generation that must occur to remove those organisms without the mutation. These deaths need to be replenished.

---

In order to mainatain/attain the original population size... which is required by nature...

quote:

---

How fast they can be replenished depends on the reproductive capacity of the organism. Much of that capacity has to pay for normal genetic deaths, while some excess is available to move the new positive mutation through the population over time. Even some receiving the advantageous mutation will die and need to be paid for (even though they are superior, they may still get hit by a rock, fall off a cliff, be a stuck up prude and not reproduce, get nailed with kryptonite, etc). ALL genetic deaths must be paid for and replinished by new offspring.

---

Nw "offspring"? Are you sure about that?
Or is this going to go into your whole equivocation of terminology schtick again?

quote:

---

Conceptually speaking I hope you can now see why increasing the intensity of selection directly impacts the reproductive capacity and its ability to replinish and pay for the deaths.

---

Actually, increasing the selective value would have no impact on the reproductive capacity of the organism at all.

quote:

---

Haldane showed that fitness is roughly e^(-30n^-1), where n is number of generations, and intensity of selection was roughly I = 30n^-1. As you can see, as intensity increases n decreases. This means fewer generations are available to pay the cost, putting a greater burden on reproductive capacity.

---

To get back to that original population size... which is required by nature...

quote:

---

If you are really interested in this, you should go to a university library and get Haldane’s paper. I would also recommend Walter Remine’s book the Biotic Message, as he dedicates two chapters to this, plus a detailed appendix.

---

Having read ReMine's condescending, self-aggrandizing, and substnatially vacuous book, I strongly recommend that you not waste your time with it.
It is a creationist propaganda book, nothing more.
ReMine ignores many relevant articles, all the while claiming that there has been a grand conspiracy to "brush aside" 'Haldane's dilemma'.
Most importantly, the creationists that advocate a direct application of Haldane's model provide not a single bit of evidence - other than their personal disbelief - that even if such an application were warranted (even most informed creationists do not believe that it is, hence ReMine's status as a fringe mouthpiece), that the limits its imposes 'falsify' evolution in any sense.
Without such evidence, the entire ReMine/Williams/etc. "Haldane's dilemma" mongering is an exercise in sophism, nothing more.As an aside -What happens if we start out with a population of 100,000, a neutral mutation occurs, spreads to, say, 5% of the population, and then an environmental shift occurs, making that previously neutral mutation selectively beneficial. After the elimination of those lacking the mutation, the resulting 5000 member population occupies a new niche.How does 'the dilemma' apply?It doesn't.
That is one of the problems with mathematical models. They seldom accurately portray natural environments and occurrances. Mathematical models rely on constancy, and nature is anything but.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-02-2003]

OK, I'll trust you, not having the book handy and not willing to try to derive the probabilities myself...So what are the implications of that?Standard approximations of mutation rates for mammals (for example) suggest that individuals will average several mutations apiece.So, in a population of 100,000, it is extremely likely that SOME neutral mutation from the current generation will fixate. This is true for EVERY generation. Now that I think of it, sounds like a pretty quick way to build up lots of genetic variation.So, in a large population, the chance for any INDIVIDUAL mutation to fixate becomes small, but there MORE mutations available per generation.So...what's the problem?

quote:

---

We've asked here many times for creationists to explain to all us wrong-headed evos how, exactly, we should find these information-adding mutations, should they exist. And have received not a single answer.

---

I see your memory is failing you again. I did provide a criteria, you and several others submitted examples. The examples were either bogus or not provocative. I recall your example fell in the bogus category.

quote:

---

Me: This is an underestimate because this assumes an atypically high selective value of .1 (Gaylord Simpson believes the average positive selection value is .01). Using the more reasonable selective value the odds are 1 in 500.

​

Page: Please explain to us all how, exactly, this is an overestimate. Please provide the relevant and up to date documentation as well. Simple assertions do not suffice. By the way - GG Simpson was a paleontologist who died in 1984.

---

I provided the opinion of an evolution in far greater standing than you (well, I guess he isn't "standing" anymore).You are the one who believes in the fairytale, so provide evidence that .1 is a typical selective value for new beneficial mutations. Good luck!

quote:

---

Please explain - with supporting documentation, of course - that Haldane used "all kinds of favorable assumptions." Your mentor, ReMine, made the same claim (which you are obviously just parroting). He was repeatedly and directly asked to justify this claim.

---

I thought you said you finally read his book. I guess not.Favorable assumptions include 1) assuming single gene traits (ie ignoring the impact of quantitative traits), 2) assuming beneficial mutation is always dominant

quote:

---

Perhaps you can carry the torch for Walter and finally provide an explanation for this assertion.
Thanks.

---

Perhaps you should really read his book next time, instead of saying you did.

quote:

---

In other words, the '1667 substitutions' case is a worst case scenario: 1667 is the number of substitutions that could occur in genes which, in their effect on the genotype, are independent (a condition which is not often met in nature).
I'll post more on this when I have more time...

---

Interesting. I will be very curious to see this, since I know that multi-gene traits make the 1667 number worse. It is good you do occasionally provide something useful to this debate. Perhaps this will be another complete backfire like that Wu paper you cited!

quote:

---

I was not aware that a population's goal would be to return to its original size.

---

I never claimed it was a goal. It's a quite reasonable baseline when considering a population's fitness. Also, as big a problem large populations pose for evolution, it's in an even worse conundrum in small populations because genetic drift will move the far more common deleterious mutations to fixation at a greater clip. Savvy?

quote:

---

Actually, increasing the selective value would have no impact on the reproductive capacity of the organism at all.

---

This shows what little you really know about Haldane's Dilemma. Where is Haldane, a pop geneticist in high regard, wrong, and you right? Like you love to often say, "simple assertions" don't mean dit.

quote:

---

What happens if we start out with a population of 100,000, a neutral mutation occurs, spreads to, say, 5% of the population, and then an environmental shift occurs, making that previously neutral mutation selectively beneficial. After the elimination of those lacking the mutation, the resulting 5000 member population occupies a new niche.

---

As mentioned earlier, the problem becomes even greater for the evolutionist fairytale lover, because small populations mean those new harmful mutations that enter the scene at a far greater clip than beneficial ones will now have an increased probability to fix in the population due to genetic drift. For those siphoned by selection, new offspring are needed to replace them. Thus, an increased burden on reproductive capacity. That is why Haldane assumed a large population. Small ones don't work. You'll de-evolve from a snail to a pile of dirt real quick!

quote:

---

So, in a large population, the chance for any INDIVIDUAL mutation to fixate becomes small, but there MORE mutations available per generation.
So...what's the problem?

---

Several. Haldane’s estimate of 1 beneficial mutation per 300 generations is an average over the entire population.Also, for every new beneficial mutation, there is going to be some greater number of new harmful mutations. So if you crank up the mutation rate, you also crank up the genetic load which keeps you from moving forward (it likely will lead to deterioration). Evolutionists have to assume fanciful tales of extremely efficient, almost omniscient, selection to cull the tide of harmful mutations.

Dear Schraf,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(And don't read to much of Dawkins. It can be demonstrated that he doesn't even know the most elementary stuff on DNA. Above all things I prefer truth)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S: Of course, one doesn't need any knowledge of DNA to understand that evolution occurs.PB: Evolution as it occurs = MPG in action.
This is more and more recognised by real scientists.Best wishes,
Peter

Thanks Fred for your clarification and everyone else for the responses. Your answers have been very helpful but to keep the discussion going and to stop the topic straying too far into areas I am not very familiar with (I again apologise for my shortcomings) I would like to reiterate my original question:How does natural selection favour a mutation that, while advantageous, is not likely to increase the carriers chance of survival or reproduction.For evolution to work, every transitional step between, say, the light-sensitive skin-patch and the human or cephalopod eye has to be not only advantageous but advantageous *enough* to increase the individuals chance of reproduction. I sometimes have trouble seeing how that could happen, but I suppose it's like Gzus said and every time an adaptation evolves the situation is unique, so there is no single answer.As for the Dawkins quote, I didn't read it, it's from a television debate, and I agree that you don't need a great understanding of genetics to understand evolution. Darwin is proof of that. Besides that, I admire scientists that are comprehensible and interesting to the layman and I think Dawkins fits this category.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eximius:
How does natural selection favour a mutation that, while advantageous, is not likely to increase the carriers chance of survival or reproduction.

---

How do you define 'advantageous' if not in terms of survival? What you seem to be asking is "How does NS favor a mutation that is advantageous -- contributing to survival and reproduction -- yet does not contribute to survival and reproduction?" Something is amiss.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

You don't have a problem with my analysis of the increase of genetic variability through the accumulation of neutral mutations, then. but you do have two related problems:1. Haldane's estimate of beneficial mutationsHaldane did NOT estimate the rate of beneficial mutations to be 1 in 300 generations; rather - unless you're referring to some other 300 generation estimate - that's the time for a SUBSTITUTION of a gene that becomes disadvantageous (e.g. due to an environmental change). Haldane did NOT, as far as I know, consider the fate of a new, rare, beneficial mutation. Nor is this the estimate of the rate of appearance, anywhere in the genome, of new beneficial mutations.Also, I'm not sure what specific point you're making with this conservative estimate of beneficial mutations, anyway. Speciation, for example, only requires neutral mutations (or other genetic change).2. "fanciful" selection is required to weed out the larger number of harmful mutationsI wasn't aware that selection against harmful mutations was controversial; even creationists usually grant this. Perhaps you could point out an example of what you're talking about when you talk about "tales of ... almost omniscient" selection. I mean, in the scientific literature, presumably population genetics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]

quote:

---

We've asked here many times for creationists to explain to all us wrong-headed evos how, exactly, we should find these information-adding mutations, should they exist. And have received not a single answer.

---

​

I see your memory is failing you again. I did provide a criteria, you and several others submitted examples. The examples were either bogus or not provocative. I recall your example fell in the bogus category. [/quote]

​

Your dismissal of anything provided to you is a given, number one, and irrelevant, number two. You never provided any crieria for after-the-fact detection. At least kooky Borger tried to do that, his loony 'explanation' notwithstanding...
What "genetic analyses" did you have in mind? Perhaps the same ones that "informed evos" use to remove SNPs from single sequences prior to performing phylogenetic analyses?

​

quote:

---

quote:

---

Me: This is an underestimate because this assumes an atypically high selective value of .1 (Gaylord Simpson believes the average positive selection value is .01). Using the more reasonable selective value the odds are 1 in 500.

​

Page: Please explain to us all how, exactly, this is an overestimate. Please provide the relevant and up to date documentation as well. Simple assertions do not suffice. By the way - GG Simpson was a paleontologist who died in 1984.

---

I provided the opinion of an evolution in far greater standing than you (well, I guess he isn't "standing" anymore).

---

​

I am hurt. And arguing from authority, to boot. Again, I ask for substantiation for your claim.

quote:

---

You are the one who believes in the fairytale, so provide evidence that .1 is a typical selective value for new beneficial mutations. Good luck!

---

​

Burden shifting from Fred Williams - who would have thought?

​

Lesson for today in creationist debate techniques:
When asked to support a claim, give an evasive non-answer then shift the burden for the contrarian position upon your opponant. End such 'challenge' with an implicit claim of 'victory'.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Please explain - with supporting documentation, of course - that Haldane used "all kinds of favorable assumptions." Your mentor, ReMine, made the same claim (which you are obviously just parroting). He was repeatedly and directly asked to justify this claim.

---

​

I thought you said you finally read his book. I guess not.

---

​

No, I did read it. ReMine's unsupported ranting is not documentation.

quote:

---

Favorable assumptions include 1) assuming single gene traits (ie ignoring the impact of quantitative traits), 2) assuming beneficial mutation is always dominant

---

​

THAT is "all sorts of favorable assumptions"?

​

LOL!
If that was the best ReMine had to offer, no wonder he ignrores repeated requests to substantiate his claims!

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you can carry the torch for Walter and finally provide an explanation for this assertion.
Thanks.

---

​

Perhaps you should really read his book next time, instead of saying you did.

---

Imagine that - Fred Williams, 'Christian creationist', implying that some one is lying. If he isn't deleting guestbook posts, he is engaging in these false witness claims.
How do you suppose I documented ReMine's dishonest citation technique if I had not read his book?

​

It was painful, to be sure. I had not seen so many self-aggrandizing statements in my life. I cringed at the lack of humility. And worse, at the sheer absence of support for ReMine's fantastical claims.

​

I guess creationists need to be talked down to. Must impress them or something.
Oh - inability to support your claims noted, Moderator 3.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In other words, the '1667 substitutions' case is a worst case scenario: 1667 is the number of substitutions that could occur in genes which, in their effect on the genotype, are independent (a condition which is not often met in nature).
I'll post more on this when I have more time...

---

​

Interesting. I will be very curious to see this, since I know that multi-gene traits make the 1667 number worse.

---

You know this, do you?

​

Amazing. How about explaining it all to us?

​

And while you are at it, p

​

It is good you do occasionally provide something useful to this debate. Perhaps this will be another complete backfire like that Wu paper you cited!

---

Your fantasy world notwithstanding, it is a shame that you lack even the ability to understand your intellectual shortcomings.Your haphazard and uninformed use of terminology and selective knowledge typically comes back to haunt you.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was not aware that a population's goal would be to return to its original size.

---

​

I never claimed it was a goal.

---

It is implicit in your claims.

quote:

---

It's a quite reasonable baseline when considering a population's fitness.

---

Sure, for mathematical model purposes. It makes the calculations easier. But is is required?

quote:

---

Also, as big a problem large populations pose for evolution, it's in an even worse conundrum in small populations because genetic drift will move the far more common deleterious mutations to fixation at a greater clip. Savvy?

---

Yes, I savvy that you are dramatically tunnel-visioned on these issues. Sexual recombination will, as documented in the Rice et al. paper - you remember, the one that you accused the authors of dishonesty - helps to remove deleterious mutations while hastening the fixation of beneficial ones. You might want to read Felsenstein's take on this.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Actually, increasing the selective value would have no impact on the reproductive capacity of the organism at all.

---

​

This shows what little you really know about Haldane's Dilemma. Where is Haldane, a pop geneticist in high regard, wrong, and you right? Like you love to often say, "simple assertions" don't mean dit.

---

Well, you are certainly not in high regard in any area of science, so your superiority\martyr complex explains your continual need to denigrate your intellectual betters, but I suggest your read - carefully - what I wrote and to what I was responding.
I notice that you still call it "Haldane's Dilemma." that shows how little you know about pop genetics and evolution. You really should not rely upon the bombastic tripe churned out by fellow non-expert creationists for your information.
Do you know what reproductive capacity is? It would appear not. I was pointing out the latest in a long line of illogical statements by you based on your dearth of backgroung knowledge in areas that you like to pontificate in.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What happens if we start out with a population of 100,000, a neutral mutation occurs, spreads to, say, 5% of the population, and then an environmental shift occurs, making that previously neutral mutation selectively beneficial. After the elimination of those lacking the mutation, the resulting 5000 member population occupies a new niche.

---

​

As mentioned earlier, the problem becomes even greater for the evolutionist fairytale lover, because small populations mean those new harmful mutations that enter the scene at a far greater clip than beneficial ones will now have an increased probability to fix in the population due to genetic drift.

---

You are a real broken record. Of course, you are dodging the issue.

quote:

---

For those siphoned by selection, new offspring are needed to replace them. Thus, an increased burden on reproductive capacity. That is why Haldane assumed a large population. Small ones don't work. You'll de-evolve from a snail to a pile of dirt real quick!

---

Yes, well, the Hebrew tribal deity can always make men out of the dirt of the ground using magic, right Fred? And He can also use oil of Hyssop with its "50% antibacterial" to make sure that Adam doesn't get sick when scrumping all the other animals trying to see with one he wants to use as an 'helpmeet'.Anyway, as is usually the case with you creationist one-trick-ponies, you dodged the issue.Apparently, the human population must have been int he 10-billion range in the past, because that is where we are headed and, after all, acording to you, populations will need to get back to their original size.guess Adam must have had a lot of brothers...Well, at least I see that you have conceded the point that mutations od not reproduce... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-03-2003]

quote:

---

You don't have a problem with my analysis of the increase of genetic variability through the accumulation of neutral mutations, then.

---

I would disagree with your wording of this. Neutral mutations don’t increase *variability*, the variability is already present. Only if the neutral mutation is a gene duplication could one suggest *variability* increased per se, but you and I know that is not what you were referring to. I would say *any* kind of mutation that becomes established will increase genetic *diversity* of a population.

quote:

---

Haldane did NOT estimate the rate of beneficial mutations to be 1 in 300 generations; rather - unless you're referring to some other 300 generation estimate - that's the time for a SUBSTITUTION of a gene that becomes disadvantageous (e.g. due to an environmental change).

---

No it isn’t. I have the paper right in front of me. See pg 514, 4th paragraph.

quote:

---

Also, I'm not sure what specific point you're making with this conservative estimate of beneficial mutations, anyway.

---

Because life cannot be the result of evolution of neutral traits. Beneficial mutations are absolutely essential and you need tons of them. Of course evolutionists of late have been avoiding this by acting as if they are not part of, or required by, their theory. It’s frankly pretty silly!

quote:

---

Speciation, for example, only requires neutral mutations (or other genetic change).

---

Speciation is a subjective term, and it does not require neutral mutations. Regardless, speciation has long been part of the creation model so it doesn’t really aid your argument.

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that selection against harmful mutations was controversial; even creationists usually grant this.

---

Yes, in fact a creationist [Blythe] came up with natural selection before Darwin did. Selection is primarily a conservation mechanism.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could point out an example of what you're talking about when you talk about "tales of ... almost omniscient" selection. I mean, in the scientific literature, presumably population genetics.

---

No problem. Do a search on truncation selection. The only time this fairytale is brought up is to deal with the cost of harmful mutations. Otherwise no one would dare suggest such a kooky mechanism. See my article: 404 Not Found

Scott, I will say you are consistently reliable in giving the audience a good dose of irony!In your virtually content-less post, you write: You are a real broken record.The point I made was entirely on topic, and entirely valid. You, on the otherhand, repeated many of your old tired standbys that have nothing to do with the debate, ones you always bring in when you can’t rebut my arguments. I counted no less than 5 this time. Very good! Here they are:1) Perhaps the same ones that "informed evos" use to remove SNPs from single sequences prior to performing phylogenetic analyses? (going on 2 years old)
2) If he isn't deleting guestbook posts, he is engaging in these false witness claims (6 months old)
3) Oh - inability to support your claims noted, Moderator 3 (almost 1 year old)
4) the Rice et al. paper - you remember, the one that you accused the authors of dishonesty (almost 1 year old)
5) He can also use oil of Hyssop with its "50% antibacterial" (I dunno, 5 months old?)LOL!Speaking of the Rice paper, don’t you remember I already refuted their misleading claims?
404 Not Found OK, now to your one substantive question in that otherwise entirely worthless post:

quote:

---

Me: I will be very curious to see this, since I know that multi-gene traits make the 1667 number worse.

​

Page: You know this, do you? Amazing. How about explaining it all to us?

---

Sure, my young apprentice. Say a new beneficial mutation occurs that impacts a quantitative trait. Say this trait is controlled by 5 genes. In order for one offspring to inherit the precise combination of genes, 2^5 offspring would be needed. That’s 32, for my math-deficient young apprentice. Normally, the reproductive barrier is already a burdensome 50%. But this makes the hurdle 97%!Now granted this is worse case. In my example, the beneficial mutation may work well with a combination of the other 4 genes. But surely there are going to be combinations where the phenotypic expression is not going to be recognizable by natural selection. So the actual barrier falls somewhere between 50% and 97% in the example I gave above. Since Haldane is assuming sing-trait genes, he is assuming 50% all of the time. This is clearly a favorable assumption for his model.Savvy?