Biotic Message by Walter Remine

[Science For Creation]

... why should we think that the Haldane Limit poses any kind of problem for human-chimp ancestry? In order for there to be a problem, .... we would need to know that humans and/or chimps have more than 1,667 beneficial substitutions than their common ancestor had. Although we know the nucleotide similarity between chimpanzees and humans, we don't know how many of those nucleotides represent mutations which are beneficial/neutral/deleterious (especially since a single mutation can alter many nucleotides at once). We haven't done an exhaustive investigation of the function of all our alleles yet.

Walter ReMine approaches the problem this way: Start with the things evolutionists claim. They claim that since the time humans diverged from chimps, the following novel adaptations originated or greatly improved: upright posture, hand dexterity, voice box, speech, language, the distribution of hair, the tripling of brain size, and appreciation of music, to name a few. Again, start with the things evolutionists claim. Those things would have to be explained within the Haldane Limit (~1,667 beneficial substitutions, plus some number of neutral substitutions which do nothing to help adaptation).

So what can a beneficial substitution do? Again, ReMine says, start with the things evolutionists claim. Look especially for their experimental demonstrations of what beneficial substitutions can do. Well, the classic example of natural selection in action (given abundantly in evolutionary textbooks) is sickle-cell anemia. Perhaps a better example is the Galapagos finches, which evolutionists claim evolved different beak sizes depending on the available food sources. So how many beneficial substitutions were required to achieve the improved beak size? A hundred? Ten? We can err to the favor of evolutionists by assuming the smallest possible number: One. It takes at least one beneficial substitution to improve the beak size. That's the kind of power in one beneficial substitution.

Can all the novel human adaptations be explained within the Haldane Limit (~1,667 beneficial substitutions)? Evolutionary geneticists have scarcely begun to discuss this problem, must less solve it. There is virtually nothing on this issue published in the evolutionary genetics literature.

Haldane's Dilemma was never solved. It is a scandal.

******

Kryptid again posted a reference to a non-peer-reviewed internet web-page by an author who is not an evolutionary geneticist. It's disgraceful because it is the best that evolutionists have. (I already responded to it here.)

Let me emphasize again, evolutionists claimed for decades that Haldane's Dilemma was "solved". Therefore, the peer-reviewed literature ought display a solution that a majority of evolutionary geneticists back with their names and reputations, and that solution ought be firmly integrated into evolutionary theorizing. But no such solution exists. Instead, we have evolutionary geneticists hiding behind a non-peer-reviewed internet web-page written by a non-expert. It is a disgusting display of how science ought not be done. It is a scandal. Evolutionary geneticists should step-up and publish on Haldane's Dilemma.

******

Kryptid, you are falsely inserting young-earth issues into ReMine's book. You should start another thread for your speculations about young-earth.

[Note: The classic result, (neutral substitution rate = neutral mutation rate), is only valid for large genomes, such as mammals. But not for a virus, where Kimura's infinite-sites model is violated.]

 

[outhouse]

Let it go on record that evolutionists here routinely cite (and post links to) material that is not peer-reviewed (and which is actually internet web pages, where the sources are anonymous).

.

Trying to tear down evolution by perverting credible biology?



Let it be on record, creationist have no evidence at all that is peer reviewed that is credible that supports anything ever being created.



As it stands evolution is fact and taught as higher learning in every major university around the world, while creation is outlawed so we don't poison children's minds in science class.

 

[outhouse]

Walter ReMine

Is an electrical engineer



message theory :areyoucra



Hey he does test and can quote mine with the best of them, but in the end he practices pseudoscience, and nothing more.

 

[Parsimony]

Walter ReMine approaches the problem this way: Start with the things evolutionists claim. They claim that since the time humans diverged from chimps, the following novel adaptations originated or greatly improved: upright posture, hand dexterity, voice box, speech, language, the distribution of hair, the tripling of brain size, and appreciation of music, to name a few. Again, start with the things evolutionists claim. Those things would have to be explained within the Haldane Limit (~1,667 beneficial substitutions, plus some number of neutral substitutions which do nothing to help adaptation).

So what can a beneficial substitution do? Again, ReMine says, start with the things evolutionists claim. Look especially for their experimental demonstrations of what beneficial substitutions can do. Well, the classic example of natural selection in action (given abundantly in evolutionary textbooks) is sickle-cell anemia. Perhaps a better example is the Galapagos finches, which evolutionists claim evolved different beak sizes depending on the available food sources. So how many beneficial substitutions were required to achieve the improved beak size? A hundred? Ten? We can err to the favor of evolutionists by assuming the smallest possible number: One. It takes at least one beneficial substitution to improve the beak size. That's the kind of power in one beneficial substitution.

Can all the novel human adaptations be explained within the Haldane Limit (~1,667 beneficial substitutions)? Evolutionary geneticists have scarcely begun to discuss this problem, must less solve it. There is virtually nothing on this issue published in the evolutionary genetics literature.

Haldane's Dilemma was never solved. It is a scandal.

In order for there to definitely be a problem, it would still need to be demonstrated that such changes would indeed require more than 1,667 beneficial mutations, which I would say is far from given.

Kryptid again posted a reference to a non-peer-reviewed internet web-page by an author who is not an evolutionary geneticist. It's disgraceful because it is the best that evolutionists have. (I already responded to it here.)

Let me emphasize again, evolutionists claimed for decades that Haldane's Dilemma was "solved". Therefore, the peer-reviewed literature ought display a solution that a majority of evolutionary geneticists back with their names and reputations, and that solution ought be firmly integrated into evolutionary theorizing. But no such solution exists. Instead, we have evolutionary geneticists hiding behind a non-peer-reviewed internet web-page written by a non-expert. It is a disgusting display of how science ought not be done. It is a scandal. Evolutionary geneticists should step-up and publish on Haldane's Dilemma.

The author of that webpage did cite a scientific study, and how do you know that the figure is an underestimate? Has some counter-study been done?

Kryptid, you are falsely inserting young-earth issues into ReMine's book. You should start another thread for your speculations about young-earth.

Rates of evolution are related to the question at hand, though.

Note: The classic result, (neutral substitution rate = neutral mutation rate), is only valid for large genomes, such as mammals. But not for a virus, where Kimura's infinite-sites model is violated.]

Source? Let's also not forget that since neutral substitution rate = neutral mutation rate for chimpanzees (as you agree with), then that means that the only way that the genetic differences between chimpanzees and bonobos can be explained in a young-earth scenario is by positing that the mutation rates of these species was massively higher in the past than it is now. What would have caused this and why would it not have created an error catastrophe?

 

[Ouroboros]

Regarding the issue if this is relating to YEC or not.

The Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography
Bibliography of Young Earth Creationists:

The books listed in this bibliography represent works of authors advocating literal creationism, including the six-solar-day creation week and a worldwide cataclysmic flood.
...
91. Remine, Walter James, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, 1993), 538 pp.

So, yes, this discussion most definitely is relating to young Earth creationism. ReMine is using his "dilemma" conundrum to promote young Earth creationism.

 

[Parsimony]

Before I go any further, I would like to clarify that I am not necessarily making reference to YEC only. I believe that some old-Earth creationists hold that life itself is still young (<10,000 years) while the Earth is old (~4.5 billion years). So it would probably be best to say that I am making reference to a "young life" model of creationism.

Haldane's Dilemma is relevant to a young life model because it places a huge constraint on it as well. How many beneficial substitutions can a chimpanzee have in a young life model according to the Haldane Limit? Chimpanzees reach maturity at 8-10 years of age, which makes there between 600 and 1,250 generations in a time span of 6,000-10,000 years. If Haldane's Limit only allows one beneficial substitution per 300 generations, then chimpanzees should have no more than 2-4.17 beneficial substitutions.

You said that the webpage linked earlier had an underestimate for the total number of beneficial substitutions for humans. Well, not only did that study search for beneficial substitutions in humans, but in chimpanzees as well. They reported finding 233 genes which are under positive selection (which means at least 233 beneficial substitutions if each substitution was in a different gene, which is a best-case scenario). This greatly violates the Haldane Limit if a young life approach is considered. How can chimpanzees evolve at a rate more than 55 times faster than the Haldane Limits says they should be able to? Plus, if they underestimated the beneficial substitutions in humans, then they probably underestimated the number of beneficial substitutions in chimps as well.

If Haldane's Dilemma is a problem for evolution, then it's an even bigger problem for most forms of creationism. In such a case, both groups should be trying to find the answer.

 

[Ouroboros]

Plus, if they underestimated the beneficial substitutions in humans, then they probably underestimated the number of beneficial substitutions in chimps as well.

Also, going back far enough there's no difference between the rates between chimps and humans since we share an ancestral species. Whatever procreation rate the most recent ancestors had is something we can only guess, but it most likely would be a lot shorter time between generations.

One of the "beneficial" mutations we have is that we gestate our offspring for 9 months, and the brain keeps on developing after birth for years, allowing us to have much more advanced brains. That's part of why we have longer time between generations.

I'm not sure why 20 years is considered an average for generations for apes and humans alike?

Also, in countries were life is harder, the age for the first child is much lower than in countries with higher living standards. American women in average have their first child at 30 (or thereabout), and in Africa is closer to 15. So I think that the living standards would influence the generation rate in the past as well.

 

[Science For Creation]

I'm not sure why 20 years is considered an average for generations for apes and humans alike?

Also, in countries were life is harder, the age for the first child is much lower than in countries with higher living standards. American women in average have their first child at 30 (or thereabout), and in Africa is closer to 15. So I think that the living standards would influence the generation rate in the past as well.

You're working too hard. ReMine's book cites three different evolutionary geneticists showing that the human lineage (during the era from the chimp-human split) had an effective generation time of 20 years. The effective generation time is a technical term used by evolutionary geneticists. If you have a disagreement with the 20-year specification, then you'll have to take it up with the evolutionary geneticists. Indeed, all the key figures and data in Haldane's Dilemma come from evolutionists.

One of the "beneficial" mutations we have is that we gestate our offspring for 9 months, and the brain keeps on developing after birth for years, allowing us to have much more advanced brains. That's part of why we have longer time between generations.

That's amazing! Just "one" beneficial mutation increases the gestation time to 9 months, and the brain keeps on developing after birth for years, "allowing us to have much more advanced brains." I'm impressed. How did you figure that out? ...

 

[Riverwolf]

human lineage (during the era from the chimp-human split)

The split occurred well before the homo genus; that is, the "human lineage". Furthermore, chimps didn't exist at that time, either.

The split was from a common ancestor.

 

[Science For Creation]

ReMine is using his "dilemma" conundrum to promote young Earth creationism.

Several people here are falsely trying to insert young-earth into ReMine's book.

You should take your speculations about young-earth to another thread, because they are out of place here. Even better, if you seriously believe you have a valid argument about young-earth, then you ought try to get it published properly in a journal somewhere. Good luck to you.

 

[Parsimony]

I wonder if this guy is actually ReMine himself? I've taken notice that this thread shows up in a Google search of "Biotic Message". Perhaps he Googled his own book to see what people were saying about it and he decided to jump in this thread? Science for Creation did seem to join this forum solely to defend this one book and its message...

 

[Science For Creation]

The evolutionists on this thread are working too hard. Way too hard. They're trying to invent solutions to Haldane's Dilemma, on the fly, by themselves. A bunch of novices, posting anonymously, in this out-of-the-way forgotten corner of the internet, are trying to solve Haldane's Dilemma. It's a hoot!

None of that is necessary.

In fact, it documents my point, that Haldane's Dilemma was never solved.

If Haldane's Dilemma had been solved, then people could easily point to the solution, a solution that most evolutionary geneticists endorse with their names a reputations -- and the solution would be well-integrated into evolutionary theorizing. But no such solution exists.

Instead the evolutionary literature displays contradictions between evolutionary geneticists, and the contradictions go un-discussed there for decade after decade. Confusion abounds there, decade after decade. Then the confusions and contradictions are dutifully (and unknowingly) recited by novices here, in a vain attempt to "solve" Haldane's Dilemma.

Evolutionary geneticists have been negligent about Haldane's Dilemma -- for decades -- and the anonymous novices here are trying to cover for them. It's just too adorable.

 

[outhouse]

that Haldane's Dilemma was never solved.



.

Doesnt matter


Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly

 

[outhouse]

Evolutionary geneticists

.

YOU FORGET.

It is you who is on the defense, not offense.

YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR FAITH. NONE AT ALL.

The word views your stance as PSEUDOSCIENCE!


Evolution has been observed, and is taught worldwide as higher educatin and knowledge.


Your view, outlawed from poisoning childrens minds from credible science.

 

[Parsimony]

I see that you did not deny being ReMine.

Until you can demonstrate with some hard numbers that 1,667 beneficial substitutions is insufficient to explain the differences between humans and the common ancestor of humans and chimps, it's just your speculation that it's not enough.

 

[outhouse]

I see that you did not deny being ReMine.

.

Would not matter, He is a Electrical Engineer, and a creationist.


He would be put in his place as fast as the next person practicing PSEUDOSCIENCE

 

[outhouse]

Haldane's Dilemma is a non-issue quite frankly. Since the 1950's we've learned a lot about genetics and how it works.

Genes are not always acted upon singly for example. Nor, is there a limit to how many alleles a population can have and remain viable.

Plus, we also now know that not all genes are equal (Haldane would have been operating under the old "one gene one protein" model) and some have much greater effects on the organism than others when they mutate.

Knowledge progresses as time moves on.

wa:do

This is from a professional biologist.


Our creationist friend claimed were were all amateur hacks :slap:

So typical from those creating and following pseudoscience.

 

[Science For Creation]

Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerning Haldane's Dilemma, evolutionists here repeatedly cite sources that are (1) not evolutionary geneticists, and (2) anonymous. I pointed that out before, and the above poster is yet another example. He cites a Wikipedia article, written by anonymous non-geneticists who have nothing to lose by mis-stating things.

Again I say, if Haldane's Dilemma had been solved, then it would be easy to cite a majority of evolutionary geneticists endorsing the solution -- and that solution would be well-integrated into evolutionary theorizing. But no such solution exists. So evolutionists here obfuscate by citing an anonymous Wikipedia article.

Here is what the Wikipedia article says:

Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision",

That does not solve Haldane's Dilemma. Haldane's assumptions were already wildly in favor of evolution. And the "drastic revision" required by the modern understanding of genetics (such as the ENCODE Project) makes the problem even worse for evolutionists, not better.

Haldane's paper also correctly said, "I am convinced that quantitative arguments of the kind here put forward should play a part in all future discussions of evolution." Haldane clearly saw this as a serious issue, and one of perpetual interest. The Wikipedia article omits that.

and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly

That quotation is completely false and misleading, and the reasons why have been explained many times.

More importantly for our conversation here, you cannot get even a few evolutionary geneticists to back the above quotation with their names and reputations, much less a majority of evolutionary geneticists. There exists no solution to Haldane's Dilemma.

In addition, the above quotation is contradicted by many evolutionary geneticists. Kimura, Ewens, Crow, and Maynard-Smith all took Haldane's concept seriously and attempted particular solutions to it. They did not think the cost of beneficial substitutions "disappears". They all knew that Haldane's argument applies to sexual species (where recombination is operating). They all knew that a non-constant population size does not make the problem go away.

Kimura, for example, cited "Haldane's Dilemma" (yes, he used that name) as his "main reason" for proposing the neutral theory of evolution. Contrary to the Wikipedia article, he did not think the cost of beneficial substitutions "disappears."

And evolutionary geneticist, G.C. Williams wrote, "In my opinion the [Haldane's Dilemma] problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else."

The Wikipedia article is a farce, written anonymously, and evolutionists ought be embarrassed to cite it. They ought be embarrassed by it's very existence.

 

[Science For Creation]

This is from a professional biologist.

This poster is citing yet another anonymous source, who is not an evolutionary geneticist (but merely a "professional biologist", perhaps one who prepares tissue slides in a hospital), and not from a published scientific journal.

On Haldane's Dilemma, is there no end to the chicanery that evolutionists promote and tolerate? Will any evolutionist here object to the evolutionists' habit of citing anonymous sources?

 

[Parsimony]

Still no numbers? Then it's still speculation.