How long would it take for a novel alelle to be fixated in a population?

Well, that depends.If you look at what Haldane did (according to your quote) he tried to produce a ball-park figure for how many deaths would be required due to the less-adaptive trait being selected against. It turned out that in his math that could be answered in terms of a multiple of population size no matter how strong the selective pressure was, and no matter what the population size was.But the question of how much time it would take to achieve fixation does in fact depend on the strength of the selective pressure, and quite possibly on population size as well (I'll have to think about that). That's a different question.

Well of course Haldane did not calculate that as such, the creationist is simply lying.But in the second place, why would it be a problem? It may well be the case that only 1,667 beneficial mutations separate humans from chimps. It might be a lot less, I wouldn't be at all surprised. ReMine doesn't know --- nobody knows at present --- how many beneficial mutations actually make the difference.What ReMine is doing (implicitly or explicitly, I don't know how stupid he is) is assuming without the slightest shred of justification that every genetic difference between chimps and humans is the result of a beneficial mutation favored by natural selection rather than a neutral mutation fixed by genetic drift. And there is no reason at all for thinking this except that he wants to come up with some crappy creationist argument.Now it can be shown mathematically (I've done this myself, I'll dig out the working if you're interested) that genetic drift would account for all the differences between humans and chimps over the last seven million years or so, if all the variations were neutral (which they aren't). If we wish to introduce Haldane into the argument, we need to know how many of these differences are beneficial and favored by natural selection, rather than neutral and fixed by genetic drift. And ReMine doesn't know that any more than anyone else does.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then he's wrong, because the math clearly shows that he's wrong.It can be proved with some elegance that the rate of fixation of neutral mutations in the population is exactly equal to the rate of occurrence of neutral mutations in the individual. In fact, if I remember rightly, this was first proved by Haldane.And of course it matters. Haldane's result (the so-called "dilemma") is specifically about fixation by natural selection. It refers to the number of deaths that would need to occur if selection was operating, because of those individuals dying because selection was operating against them. If natural selection isn't operating, then Haldane's result doesn't apply.

I've read the paper that you linked to, so you should be happy.What in particular in his paper would you like me to refute?It's the same old crap: he claims that the number of beneficial mutations separating humans from chimps must be fewer than 1,667. I myself would not be surprised if the actual number of beneficial mutations was fewer than 100. This is not even relevant to the total number of mutations, good, bad, or indifferent.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Mad people are funny.

Well, let's be clear about this.If he is claiming that Haldane's work proves that that is an upper limit on the number of base pair substitutions that can occur, then he is a filthy stupid drooling liar. Because Haldane's math only applies to beneficial mutations.If he is claiming that 1,667 is greater than the number of beneficial mutations that have actually occurred, then he is a filthy stupid drooling liar. Because no-one has counted them.If, as is usually the case with creationists, he is juggling with words and with figures while not committing himself to any actual claim, then he is a filthy stupid drooling liar. Because he is pretending to have a quantitative argument when he does not.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, if he would say 1667 beneficial base pair mutations, then he might be correct within an order of magnitude. And then it would be clear why the creationist attempt to make capital out of this is worthless garbage.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No-one knows.

I thought I'd explained that. Do you have any specific questions?

No. Read it through again until you understand it.Haldane's math relates to the fixation of beneficial variations by natural selection. It does not relate to the fixation of neutral mutations by genetic drift, where you get a completely different answer.

OK. If Haldane's assumptions were right (and some have suggested that they are not) then a ball-park figure of about 2000 beneficial mutations, give or take an order of magnitude, might be about right. I wouldn't be surprised if it was rather fewer.

Er ... by being sufficient? What do you mean, "how"?I'm not the one pretending to have a quantitative argument. It would be up to the creationists to show that the number of beneficial mutations they calculate can have happened are insufficient to explain the observed effects. Instead, since they can't do that, they obfuscate the distinction between beneficial mutations and neutral mutations, and they tell lies. Once I've pointed out that their argument is bullshit, I feel that my work here is done.