Here's Your Discussion of Haldanes Dilemma, Jope!

[Darwin123]

The following article came was written by a Creationist. It is interesting that despite this bias against evolution, the author presents good arguments why 'Haldanes Dilemma' does not apply to actual environments. As stated by this Creationist author, real scientists have replaced the hypotheses basic to Haldanes Dilemma has been replaced by the hypotheses of Punctuated Equilibrium.

http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldanes_view.htm

'First note the context of my book. My book argues that in each instance, evolutionary theory (large-scale evolution) is either false, or unfalsifiable -- and either way it is not scientific, by the same criteria that evolutionists used in all their court cases.
However, as claimed by Stephen Jay Gould and other paleontologists, fossil species strongly exhibit stasis (or lack of change) for their entire duration, and therefore most evolutionary change must have occurred in sudden rapid bursts at speciation events (or the splitting of a lineage, known as cladogenesis), and this would mean each ancestor species can overlap in time with numerous daughter species. In other words, Haldane underestimated the number of 'species' in each lineage. (Say, by a factor of a thousand?) These matters remain unresolved even today, but they were thoroughly obscure in Haldane 1957. Once again, Haldane's focus on 'species' provided ambiguity that overwhelmed his discussion.
Footnote #5
Haldane's discussion used the average duration (or "mean life") of a species. Musgrave mistakenly referred to that as the "average rate of speciation". Those are different things. The two are connected (and reciprocal) only if Musgrave was using Classical Darwinism (and anagenesis) as his model, which favors evolutionists here by under-estimating the number of 'species' required. That model is no longer in favor. It has been substantially replaced by punctuated equilibrium and an emphasis on cladogenesis, as explained above.'


Note that the author dismisses Punctuated Equilibrium out of hand based on his own bias. However, the author avoids one mistake made by Jope.

Jope thinks that Punctuated Equilibrium has the only purpose of explaining gaps in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory also has the purpose of fitting reality a bit better. The fundamental hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium is that the environment is extremely heterogenous. New species form slowly in what is called peripheral habitats. The fundamental hypothesis in Haldanes Dilemma is that the environment is homogeneous over the entire habitat of the population.

The author inadvertently makes the point that Haldanes Dilemma explains why anagenesis is so rare. Most of evolution occurs by cladogenesis.

'Evolutionists' like Gould readily admit that anagenesis is extremely rare in nature. Most of the time organisms in a species or variety 'branch out' into multiple species.

As a physicist, I tend to analyze processes in terms of physical symmetries and selection rules. So I don't think Haldanes Dilemma shouldn't be seen as a paradox. I think of Haldanes Dilemma as a selection rule. In habitats that are homogeneous (a type of symmetry), species don't get replaced by other species (selection rule). The important caveat is that homogeneous habitats are extremely rare. Most habitats are highly heterogenous.

I thank Jope for bringing up the topic. I looked into it and did my own research. I now understand Haldanes Dilemma much better than I did before.

[Jope]

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 5:56:25 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:

>The following article came was written by a Creationist. It is interesting that despite this bias against evolution, the author presents good arguments why 'Haldanes Dilemma' does not apply to actual environments. As stated by this Creationist author, real scientists have replaced the hypotheses basic to Haldanes Dilemma has been replaced by the hypotheses of Punctuated Equilibrium.

http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldanes_view.htm

'First note the context of my book. My book argues that in each instance, evolutionary theory (large-scale evolution) is either false, or unfalsifiable -- and either way it is not scientific, by the same criteria that evolutionists used in all their court cases.
However, as claimed by Stephen Jay Gould and other paleontologists, fossil species strongly exhibit stasis (or lack of change) for their entire duration, and therefore most evolutionary change must have occurred in sudden rapid bursts at speciation events (or the splitting of a lineage, known as cladogenesis), and this would mean each ancestor species can overlap in time with numerous daughter species. In other words, Haldane underestimated the number of 'species' in each lineage. (Say, by a factor of a thousand?) These matters remain unresolved even today, but they were thoroughly obscure in Haldane 1957. Once again, Haldane's focus on 'species' provided ambiguity that overwhelmed his discussion.
Footnote #5
>Haldane's discussion used the average duration (or "mean life") of a species. Musgrave mistakenly referred to that as the "average rate of speciation". Those are different things. The two are connected (and reciprocal) only if Musgrave was using Classical Darwinism (and anagenesis) as his model, which favors evolutionists here by under-estimating the number of 'species' required. That model is no longer in favor. It has been substantially replaced by punctuated equilibrium and an emphasis on cladogenesis, as explained above.'


>Note that the author dismisses Punctuated Equilibrium out of hand based on his own bias. However, the author avoids one mistake made by Jope.

>Jope thinks that Punctuated Equilibrium has the only purpose of explaining gaps in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory also has the purpose of fitting reality a bit better. The fundamental hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium is that the environment is extremely heterogenous. New species form slowly in what is called peripheral habitats. The fundamental hypothesis in Haldanes Dilemma is that the environment is homogeneous >>over the entire habitat of the population.

Explaining gap in the fossil record and fitting reality a bit better, mean the exact same thing. Only in that particular case, you are using Punctuated Equilibrium to explain the gap that has been exposed by Haldane's Dilemma
As I pointed out in another thread ,the substitution cost is a variable .It comes into play regardless of the rate of evolution.

>The author inadvertently makes the point that Haldanes Dilemma explains why anagenesis is so rare. Most of evolution occurs by cladogenesis.

Actually Haldane took cladogenesis into account. In 1960 new evidence showed more genetic diversity within and between species than was previously assumed. It therefore became problematic that natural selection seemed either too slow to explain the observed diversity or too costly in mortality for species to survive. Hence the 'dilemma'.

> 'Evolutionists' like Gould readily admit that anagenesis is extremely rare in nature. Most of the time organisms in a species or variety 'branch out' into multiple species.

>As a physicist, I tend to analyze processes in terms of physical symmetries and selection rules. So I don't think Haldanes Dilemma shouldn't be seen as a paradox. I think of Haldanes Dilemma as a selection rule. In habitats that are homogeneous (a type of symmetry), species don't get replaced by other species (selection rule). The important caveat is that homogeneous habitats are >extremely rare. Most habitats are highly heterogenous.

You are wrong. Haldane's dilemma applies to heterogeneous environments as well.

It is fairly obvious that natural selection cannot occur with great intensity for a number of characters at once unless they happen to be controlled by the same genes.

Haldane poses the following question: supposing you have constant selective pressure towards one trait in particular, how many individuals without the trait need to die before the new trait takes over? Too many deaths will cause the population to go extinct, but too little will never allow the turnover of the new trait. This is what he defines the "substitution cost," or, in other words, the cost for a trait to become advantageous.
He calculates the substitution cost under a very particular scenario: suppose that a sudden change happens in the environment (like a shift in climate, or the introduction of a new predator), and this causes a certain species to be less adapted to the environment, and therefore, to have lower reproduction rate. The less fit individuals will die first, thus allowing natural selection to push forward the fitter ones. Suppose that a particular mutated gene, until then rare in the population, favors adaptation to the new environment. Gradually, the population will see a shift in prevalence of the new trait. Individuals without the trait will progressively go extinct and in this process other traits may get lost. As a result, under this scenario, no more than one gene can be selected at once.

Haldane wrote:

"Unless selection is very intense, the number of deaths needed to secure the substitution, by natural selection, of one gene for another at a locus, is independent of the intensity of selection. It is often about 30 times the number of organisms in a generation. It is suggested that, in evolution, the mean time taken for each gene substitution is about 300 generations. This accords with the observed slowness of evolution."
The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make a hypothetical scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the habitat.

I thank Jope for bringing up the topic. I looked into it and did my own research. I now understand Haldanes Dilemma much better than I did before.

Haldane was a passionate evolutionist with a bit of honesty. But he never solved his own dilemma . The last time I quoted Haldane's figure, which I took from Walter Remine;you called Remine an idiot. And you strongly objected to the number 1667.


A population of our hypothetical ape ancestors could not absorb more than 1 beneficial single-point mutation every 300 years. When I say "absorb", I'm referring to the time it would take for the new beneficial mutation to become fixated.

10 million years = time since human lineage broke off from ape ancestor
300 = number of generations Haldane figured, on average, would be required for a beneficial mutation to become "fixed" or "common" in the population of pre-humans
20 = number of years per generation, on average
1,667 = 10,000,000 / (20 * 300)


To resolve Haldane's Dilemma you must show that either
1) Haldane's math fails to account for relevant factors that would increase the number of plausible substitutions within evolutionary timescales, or
2) Show that a mere 1,600 letter differences in DNA composed of 3 billion can account for all the differences between humans and our hypothetical ape ancestor.
If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, June 5, 2014 9:16:40 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> >The author inadvertently makes the point that Haldanes Dilemma explains why anagenesis is so rare. Most of evolution occurs by cladogenesis.
>
> Actually Haldane took cladogenesis into account. In 1960 new evidence showed more genetic diversity within and between species than was previously assumed. It therefore became problematic that natural selection seemed either too slow to explain the observed diversity or too costly in mortality for species to survive. Hence the 'dilemma'.

Because the species are emerging simultaneously, not one at a time. ReMine did not take that into account. He is lining up the species as though one species has to emerge before the next species emerges. He is assuming that all 1,667 de nova mutations per species has to emerge one after another into the same lineage.

I don't think ReMine shows any more understanding of statistics than you do, Jope. You may have
more excuse. I find it hard to believe that ReMine passed his statistics course. He is making a classic error. He replaces the intersection of a set for the union of a set.

ReMine doesn't seem to understand cladogenesis very well. He doesn't realize that the species in the different lineages are mutating randomly. So the time periods of the emergence are overlapping. He is implying that the time periods can't overlap. This is a clear mathematical mistake. I am surprised no other 'evolutionist' caught it.

Rhodes has a mathematics degree. Maybe he can tell us whether he made a obvious mistake or not. I think I caught ReMine with his pants down.

>
>
>
> > 'Evolutionists' like Gould readily admit that anagenesis is extremely rare in nature. Most of the time organisms in a species or variety 'branch out' into multiple species.
>

I don't think ReMine has a clear picture of what this means. ReMine may say cladogenesis, but he is analyzing the system like it is anagenesis.

Maybe that is why his articles were rejected again and again. I'll bet that any reviewer with any understanding of statistics would catch that. I think ReMine has messed up his statistics.

Try and draw what ReMine is saying. He admits that evolution looks like a tree. However, he is cutting the branches of the tree and lining them up end to end. This is not correct.

I won't call him names this time. I will leave that to others. I have just pointed out a place where he is incorrect. If I was grading ReMine in a statistics course, I would take off points.

>
>
> >As a physicist, I tend to analyze processes in terms of physical symmetries and selection rules. So I don't think Haldanes Dilemma shouldn't be seen as a paradox. I think of Haldanes Dilemma as a selection rule. In habitats that are homogeneous (a type of symmetry), species don't get replaced by other species (selection rule). The important caveat is that homogeneous habitats are >extremely rare. Most habitats are highly heterogenous.
> You are wrong. Haldane's dilemma applies to heterogeneous environments as well.

You said that with such faith. Is this anything like 'no selection in utero'?

Neither ReMine nor you have shown me that Haldanes Dilemma applies to heterogenous environments. The probability of death is the same for all individuals with a specific genome. There is gradation in probability of death with location. The entire environment is deteriorating equally for every genotype.

Evolution clearly occurs in heterogenous environments. I pointed out clines and ring species. Did you look them up? These are populations which develop great variety due to an environment that varies slowly over space. It turns out that the organisms also develop a partial hybridization barrier. Partial hybridization barriers are not included in Haldanes Dilemma.

There are several places where there is a population of organisms with an inter fertility that grades from one end of the habitat to the other. The environment also grades from one end to the other.

Walter ReMine wrote a a book, 'The Biotic Message', where he claims to have found serious errors in the theory of evolution. Creationists, including Jope, have insisted that I read ReMine. While I haven't read the entire book, I have found lots of 'reviews' of ReMind by Creationists that attribute to him these horrible errors. I have found a review by ReMine summarizing his theory
http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldanes_view.htm.

One important part of his theory is that Haldanes Dilemma shows the impossibility of evolution. Haldanes Dillemma is a paradox based on very specific hypotheses about the environment and genetics. Haldanes Dilemma has been resolved by several scientists based on different hypotheses than Haldane put forth. ReMine claims that all these resolutions are incorrect. However, I claim that ReMine hasn't acknowledged in any way the plausibility of these hypotheses.

Going through this review, I easily picked up many errors. I have no wish to read 'The Biotic Message' unless someone shows me how the review is correct. I don't want to pay to read an argument that is based on flawed hypotheses. The review at least is free. ReMine makes some mistakes which seem to me rather illogical.

ReMine bases the fact that he can't get his articles published on prejudice in the scientific community. Many Creationists agree. However, I propose that he got rejected because he actually made serious mistakes. I will show just a few specific examples in ReMines review of where ReMine made a mistake.

II am a physicist, not a biologist. However, my field requires mathematics and logic. I think that I can recognize mistakes in mathematical analysis. If anyone, including Jope, finds a logical flaw in my arguments. I will not accept insulting adjectives like 'absurd'.

The main mistake that ReMine makes are based on the fact that he has not examined the physical hypotheses on which Haldanes Dilemma is based. What scientists have found is that the fundamental hypotheses in Haldanes Dilemma are not realistic. And ReMine knows this but won't acknowledge it!

Let us look at the following passage. There are a few major errors of ReMine here. However, REMine hides them with half truths and insults. See the following link and quote.



http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldanes_view.htm
'This implicitly assumes anagenesis, which is the focus of Classical Darwinism. In anagenesis, a species is transformed into a daughter species, and therefore cannot coexist with a daughter species. Each 'species' replaces the one before it. However, as claimed by Stephen Jay Gould and other paleontologists, fossil species strongly exhibit stasis (or lack of change) for their entire duration, and therefore most evolutionary change must have occurred in sudden rapid bursts at speciation events (or the splitting of a lineage, known as cladogenesis), and this would mean each ancestor species can overlap in time with numerous daughter species. In other words, Haldane underestimated the number of 'species' in each lineage. (Say, by a factor of a thousand?) These matters remain unresolved even today, but they were thoroughly obscure in Haldane 1957. Once again, Haldane's focus on 'species' provided ambiguity that overwhelmed his discussion.'

I want to point out one highly irrational part of ReMines argument which I hope the reader doesn't forget.

ReMine rightly points out that Haldanes Dilemma applies to anagenesis and anagenesis only. Anagenesis describes the dynamics of a species that makes a transition from one species to another. ReMine makes the claim that one needs at least 1667 mutations (probably de nova mutations) in a lineage to make a new species. I won't address the issue right now of whether this number is right or not. For now, let me assume that ReMine is correct. At least 1667 de Nova mutations, all benficial in some sense, have to occur in one lineage to make a new species.

Then ReMine correctly points out that scientific studies show that cladogenesis is far more common than anagenesis. Many species form almost simultaneously. Then ReMine makes the amazing claim that more species are needed in one lineage for cladogenesis than for anagenesis.

This can not be true because the species in cladogenesis don't have to emerge in the same lineage! The final species that form in cladogenesis form independently, since mutations are random. They are random since they don't have to be the same all the time, although some may repeat. The rate of mutation per conception is fixed. So if 1667 de nova mutations occur in one lineage, 1667 different mutations are almost as likely in another lineage of equal size.

So what ReMine did was conflate cladogenesis for anagenesis. He unconsciously did the mathematics for anagenesis by dumping all the de nova mutations into one lineage. He unionized the different lineages!

This is a typical mistake of someone who doesn't understand statistics. He mistook the union of sets for the intersection of sets. It is the same type of mistake that Jope makes again and again. It is an obvious mistake, one that has nothing to do with my prejudice.

ReMine rightly points out that Haldanes Dilemma is no longer discussed partly because punctuated equilibrium is now accepted. However, he doesn't tell all the reasons why punctuated equilibrium is accepted.

ReMine concentrates on the fossil record, as though Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) is solely a phenomenological model. However, he doesn't state a fundamental hypothesis in PE. The main hypothesis in PE is that part of the population, called the peripheral isolate, lives on the margin of the habitat. In other words, PE rehires an environment which is heterogenous.

Haldanes Dilemma requires an environment that is homogeneous and a population with no hybridization barriers. The logic of Haldanes Dilemma is that all individuals in a population be exposed equally to a deteriorating environment. Then, all individuals are at nearly equal risk, including the mutations. So The population dies before mutations can accumulate or the de post mutations get spread out before they accumulate.

The real world isn't like that for two reasons. First, the environment is highly inhomogeneous. Second, some de nova mutations come with a partial hybridization barrier. So the hypotheses of Haldanes Dilemma doesn't occur in the real world. ReMine dismisses these possibilities by pointing out the ambiguities in the word 'species'.

The real issue is how heterogeneous real environments are, not how well defined a species is. In the real world, every 'hostile' environment is surrounded by a larger environment which is much less hostile. So not all organisms in a population care exposed to the same amount of risk. Therefore, Haldanes Dilemma is not a paradox. It is more like a selection rule.

ReMine knows that Punctuated Equilibrium and Haldanes Dilemma are mutually exclusive. Haldanes Dilemma can't be valid in an environment where Punctuated Equilibrium occurs. Conditions in the real world has been shown to be consistent with Punctuated Equilibrium, not Haldanes Dileema.

Again, I predict that Jope won't address or even acknowledge that I tried to rebut ReMines 'theory' on its own merits. I may be emotionally biased, but I know my math. At some point in the future, he will claim that no one has refuted ReMine. The reader will notice that this is a falsehood.

I have addressed ReMines comments. If anyone finds something wrong, then let him show me.

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, June 5, 2014 9:16:40 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

I will for the sake of argument accept the number 1667, However, ReMine did not include the appropriate units. The probability of a certain type of mutations increases with the number of individuals. The probability of forming a new species increases with the number of lineages. Therefore, this number should not be unit less. I insist on plausible units.

For the sake of argument, I will assume that it requires 1667 beneficial mutations per lineage to create a new species. It is possible that in the lineage leading from the MRCA (most recent ancestor) of apes and chimpanzees to Darwin123, 1667 beneficial de nova mutations were necessary. In the lineage leading from the MRCA to Bonzo the Chimp, 1667 beneficial de nova mutations were necessary. beneficial de nova mutations were necessary. However, most of the the 1667 de nova mutations that lead to Darwin123 are not the same as the 1667 de nova mutations that lead to Bonzo.

Every species must have a different combination of de nova beneficial mutations that is different from the combination of de nova mutations in another species. This hypothesis is plausible because de nova mutations are RANDOM.

Another caveat must be made concerning the the words 'beneficial' and 'environment'. In the real world, there is no one environment at any time. Environment vary over space. So I suppose that the ancestors of the MRCA species extended over a region with at least three completely different environments. There was a region were all the population was 'optimally adapted', such as the banks of a river. The river flows through thick jungle and nearly flat plains. Some de nova mutations are beneficial in the flat plains. Some de nova mutations are beneficial in the jungle. However, each mutation is neutral on the river banks.

I won't justify this exact scenario. I believe it is very close to what paleontologists believe occurred. If you don't like this precise scenario, then I can make up another. The one scenario that I will not consider is a vast environment which is entirely homogeneous.

>
> > To resolve Haldane's Dilemma you must show that either
>
> 1) Haldane's math fails to account for relevant factors that would increase the number of plausible substitutions within evolutionary timescales, or

Haldanes math does not account for heterogeneity in the environment. Heterogeneity increases the number of possible mutations that are beneficial. Haldanes math also does not account for cladogenesis. One can have several species emerge over the same time period.

ReMine makes a mistake here. He claims that the time needed to form two species is twice as long as the time needed to form one species. He dismisses Punctuated Equilibrium on the basis of this error in statistical theory. All evidence indicates that cladogenesis is more common. In reality, two species emerging at the same time is more common than one species emerging during the same amount of time.

>
> 2) Show that a mere 1,600 letter differences in DNA composed of 3 billion can account for all the differences between humans and our hypothetical ape ancestor.

I will not even try. You prove that a mere 1600 letter difference in DNA composed of 3 billion letters can not result in a different species.

So far as I know, a 1600 letter difference can determine the difference between a human and a chimpanzee. I know the two genomes vary by a lot more. However, most of those differences are neutral. Therefore, I have no way to determine if 1600 letters is sufficient. I can't prove they aren't. Neither ReMine or Jope can't prove they are not.

This goes back to the problem of what defines a species. However, I temporarily accept ReMines guess that 1667 beneficial de nova mutations per lineage is sufficient to create a new species. However, I insist on including the word 'lineage' because the mutations are independent.

>
> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.

I have shown number 1. I reject number 2 as entirely irrelevant. This the minimal set is a number impossible to calculate because it is based on an arbitrary distinction. No one can tell what the minimum number of genes is necessary to distinguish any species.

The argument comes over how the word species is defined, as ReMine admitted. However, he gave only one specific example of a species. He stated that the only species that matter are large animals such as apes and humans. No one, ReMine included, can figure that out for large animals. So really, one can chose any number.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 5:56:25 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
>>The following article came was written by a Creationist. It is interesting that despite this bias against evolution, the author presents good arguments why 'Haldanes Dilemma' does not apply to actual environments. As stated by this Creationist author, real scientists have replaced the hypotheses basic to Haldanes Dilemma has been replaced by the hypotheses of Punctuated Equilibrium.
>
>http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldanes_view.htm
>
>'First note the context of my book. My book argues that in each instance, evolutionary theory (large-scale evolution) is either false, or unfalsifiable -- and either way it is not scientific, by the same criteria that evolutionists used in all their court cases.

With a start like that, there's really no reason to waste time
discussing science with such a foolish, ignorant writer.

...

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, June 5, 2014 9:16:40 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> >Jope thinks that Punctuated Equilibrium has the only purpose of explaining gaps in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory also has the purpose of fitting reality a bit better.

No it isn't. I said that a purpose of Punctuated Equilibrium is to characterize the effect of heterogenous environments on evolution.

Haldanes assumed a homogenous environment. Even if there were no gaps in the fossil record, one would need to characterize the effect of heterogeneity in the real world. Note that Darwin discussed the effect of heterogeneity in the real world. Homogeneity was a special case analyzed by Haldane.

> Explaining gap in the fossil record and fitting reality a bit better, mean the exact same thing. Only in that particular case, you are using Punctuated Equilibrium to explain the gap that has been exposed by Haldane's Dilemma.

A gap in the fossil record is not the same as a gap in understanding the theory of evolution. One displays missing data, and the other displays a missing condition.

>
> As I pointed out in another thread ,the substitution cost is a variable .It comes into play regardless of the rate of evolution.

The substitution cost is not uniform over the entire range of the population. Haldane assumed it is uniform.

For example, an allele could be beneficial on one region, neutral in another region and a disadvantage in a third region. When the environment deteriorates, it doesn't have to deteriorate the same amount in all regions.

Real populations go through bottlenecks. They go nearly extinct all through the world. However, there are just a few survivors in one sheltered environment. This sort of thing is happens because the environment is heterogenous and dynamic.

For examples, ice ages come and go with time. The climate varies on the side of a mountain. So there is always a sheltered area where some members of a species may live. A deteriorating environment doesn't mean the entire species goes extinct.

De nova mutations can repeat. So even if the population goes extinct in one region, as long as there are survivors in the neutral region the allele has another chance. I am not sure whether this is important to evolution. However, you like to interject the falsehood that de nova mutations can't repeat. So I just anticipated you !

> You are wrong. Haldane's dilemma applies to heterogeneous environments as well.

Show me.

>
> It is fairly obvious that natural selection cannot occur with great intensity for a number of characters at once unless they happen to be controlled by the same genes.

Yes, so?

>
>
>
> Haldane poses the following question: supposing you have constant selective pressure towards one trait in particular, how many individuals without the trait need to die before the new trait takes over?

If there is a sheltered region where animals can live without the trait, then none.

As an exaggerated case, what if the animal seeks locations where it is comfortable. I think this is plausible for a lot of larger animals, which have the means to migrate.

Suppose that the trait makes the animal uncomfortable in one region but even more comfortable in the other region. The animals without the trait move to a region where they are comfortable, and the animals with the traits move into a region where they are comfortable. So in this exaggerated, perhaps unrealistic case, the substitution is zero.

Too many deaths will cause the population to go extinct, but too little will never allow the turnover of the new trait. This is what he defines the "substitution cost," or, in other words, the cost for a trait to become advantageous.

The cost of substitution can be very small if the region in question varies in space. The substitution can be in migrations for animals, in dispersal for seed bearing plants, or over all mobility for any organism at all.

>
> "Unless selection is very intense, the number of deaths needed to secure the substitution, by natural selection, of one gene for another at a locus, is independent of the intensity of selection. It is often about 30 times the number of organisms in a generation. It is suggested that, in evolution, the mean time taken for each gene substitution is about 300 generations. This accords with the observed slowness of evolution."

For smaller organisms, like insects, 300 generations is almost no amount of time. ReMine seems to think the problem is worse with larger organisms. However, larger organism can move larger distances. So I doubt homogeneity is valid even for larger animals.

>
> The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make a hypothetical scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the habitat.
>

Not true. The cost does not have to be paid in a heterogenous habitat.

>
> I thank Jope for bringing up the topic. I looked into it and did my own research. I now understand Haldanes Dilemma much better than I did before.
>

> 10 million years = time since human lineage broke off from ape ancestor
>
> 300 = number of generations Haldane figured, on average, would be required for a beneficial mutation to become "fixed" or "common" in the population of pre-humans
>
> 20 = number of years per generation, on average
>
> 1,667 = 10,000,000 / (20 * 300)

Either Haldane or ReMine is assuming that only one beneficial allele is being fixated at one time. I
am not clear from whom that erroneous assumption comes from. If it makes you comfortable, then
lets blame Haldane.

There could be a thousand different de nova mutations that are becoming fixed in any given time. Each de nova mutation could take 300 generations to become fixed. However, the total rate of becoming fixed would be 1000/300 = 3.333 fixations per year.

De nova mutation occurs in parallel because de nova mutations are random. Think of an analogy with a battery.

> To resolve Haldane's Dilemma you must show that either
>
> 1) Haldane's math fails to account for relevant factors that would increase the number of plausible substitutions within evolutionary timescales, or

I just did. You won't admit it, though.

>
> 2) Show that a mere 1,600 letter differences in DNA composed of 3 billion can account for all the differences between humans and our hypothetical ape ancestor.
>

Since de nova mutations can occur simultaneously in a population, I don't think one has to limit our discussion to 1600 letter differences.

I propose that the major issue is not whether different de nova mutations can occur simultaneously. This is inevitable given the fact that de nova mutations are random. I think the main issue is the large number of beneficial mutations needed. This issue is resolved by remembering that real environments are heterogeneous.

What is a neutral in one environment can be beneficial in another. And neutral alleles can spread all over the environment.

> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.

I was able to do so. You are unable to prove me wrong.

Note: evolutionary scientists may have done it better. This is not my field. However, there is a lot of articles on this. Evolutionary scientists have failed to make their case clear enough for ReMine to understand.

See, I haven't insulted ReMine or you! I am insulting evolutionary scientists. Evolutionary scientists haven't expressed themselves well enough for people who failed statistics.

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, June 5, 2014 9:16:40 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> A population of our hypothetical ape ancestors could not absorb more than 1 beneficial single-point mutation every 300 years. When I say "absorb", I'm referring to the time it would take for the new beneficial mutation to become fixated.

This statement is untrue no matter who said it. If Charles Darwin said it, it would still be untrue. If Haldane said it, it would still be untrue. The larger the population, the more single-point mutations it could absorb. The larger the habitat, the more single-point mutations the population could absorb. If the population and the habitat is larger enough, then they could easily support tens of single-point mutations per year.

>
>
>
> 10 million years = time since human lineage broke off from ape ancestor
> 300 = number of generations Haldane figured, on average, would be required for a beneficial mutation to become "fixed" or "common" in the population of pre-humans
> 20 = number of years per generation, on average
> 1,667 = 10,000,000 / (20 * 300)

If Haldane did the calculation, then I would insist that I see how he calculated 300 generations per single-point mutation. I would particularly like to know the number of individuals in the MRCA population. It is possible that Haldane made a mistake. More likely, this was an hypothesis that Haldane was trying to falsify. In either case, I challenge the quantity 300 generations per fixation.

I also question the assumption that only one de nova mutation becomes fixed in any interval of time. It seems to me that two different de nova mutations could occur close to each other in time and become fixated over the same number of generations. I claim that this is even more likely in an heterogeneous environment than in an environment which is homogeneous. There is no special rule of nature that forbids de nova mutations from occurring concurrently.

There may be special conditions under which this assumption is plausible. I will address any argument that this quantity, 300 de nova mutations

>
> To resolve Haldane's Dilemma you must show that either
>
> 1) Haldane's math fails to account for relevant factors that would increase the number of plausible substitutions within evolutionary timescales, or

Fine. I claim that either Haldanes mathematical analysis or ReMines distorted version of it fail on evolutionary time scales. I will not call either of them idiots. I question the analysis.

>
> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.

I was able to do so. If you can't show why I am incorrect, then you must consider the Dilemma to be resolved. I predict that you won't even acknowledge my challenge to ReMine's analysis.

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, June 5, 2014 9:16:40 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> As I pointed out in another thread ,the substitution cost is a variable .It comes into play regardless of the rate of evolution.
>

> You are wrong. Haldane's dilemma applies to heterogeneous environments as well.
>

> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.

There is a little problem with hereditary disease. Apply the analysis of Haldanes analysis to any
hereditary disease which is mostly fatal.

If the logic of Haldanes Dilemma was really applicable to all alleles in all environments, then alleles without a benefit have to go extinct. Suppose the mutant allele in Haldanes example caused a disadvantage with no benefit. Then Haldane seems to imply that that allele can not spread very far in the population. A sickness allele could actually disappear in about 300 generations. The number of
individuals inheriting that disadvantaged allele should be very small.

The number of people receiving that bad allele should be very close to the frequency of the de nova mutations. Any lineage carrying that allele will be culled. If the conditions for Haldanes Dilemma was met, then lethal illnesses would be weeded out very soon. There should not be significant genetic variability in any species.

Each species in the real world has a lot of variability. There are many examples of this among genetic diseases. Some genetic diseases are spread over a large area. Some of them are tied to specific ethnic groups. However, they often spread to many lineages within an ethnic group. Tay sacs among Ashkenazi Jews, sickle cell anemia among Afro Americans are two examples of diseases carried by lethal alleles which may have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. Somehow, the corresponding alleles have avoided the limits of Haldanes Dilemma.

Both the Rh+ blood type and the Rh - blood types are very common. However, crosses between people with the corresponding alleles often result in sick babies. If we assume that the primordial blood type didn ot cause disease, You will probably conclude that that Adam and Eve had alleles for only one.

So one allele for an Rh blood type had to be caused by a de nova mutation. Yet, Haldanes Dilemma implies that this allele would soon go extinct. The majority of people have one blood type. Crosses with others would result in blue babies who die. Or maybe it would be diluted. In any case, the minority allele could not spread. Yet, the distribution of these alleles varies throughout the world.

The percentages in the Basque region are much different from the percentages in Asia. How come one blood type has not become extinct?



Haldanes Hypothesis doesn't only restrict the emergence of full species. If taken to the extreme, Haldanes Dilemma implies that there is no evolution. The cost of replacement applies to minor varieties of a species, not just to a species.

Haldanes Dilemma doesn't just stop macroevolution. It stops microevolution. Even the evolution seen in pathogens, parasites and insects couldn't occur if Haldanes Dilemma were a general rule. Yet somehow, these more minor aspects of evolution seem to be occurring on a human time scale.

ReMine didn't mention this somehow. t think this is a little beyond what ReMine wanted. Since Jope 'understands' Haldanes Dilemma so well, perhaps he can tell us why sickle cell anemia and Tay Sacs is so common. Why doesn't the 'Phenotypic Shield' fix sickle cell anemia or Tay Sacs? Aren't these deviations foreign to the human species?

All sorts of diseases and pests change over time. The de nova mutations associated with these changes are random. Changes due to plasticity usually can't be inherited. Yet, we get insects resistant to pesticides. We get new varieties of flu every single year. These can be detected in the DNA sequences. However, Hladanes Dilemma implies that they shouldn't change.

Suppose that Haldanes Dilemma applied to Lenski's experiment. How could his E. coli show any change over 20,000 generations? New alleles should be weeded out. The cost of replacement applies
to bacteria as well as animals. If the cost of replacement was universal, these bacteria couldn't evolve
even on the level of varieties. It doesn't matter whether you call them varieties or species.

Haldanes Dilemma doesn't specify the taxonomic level. New alleles can not spread. Yet, they do. So how would Jope explain it?

If Haldanes Dilemma is universally applicable, then it should apply to situations other than emerging species. It should even apply to hereditary diseases. If it doesn't apply to hereditary diseases, maybe it can't apply to cladogenesis either.

[Darwin123]

On Saturday, June 7, 2014 2:08:22 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.
>
>
>
> I was able to do so. If you can't show why I am incorrect, then you must consider the Dilemma to be resolved. I predict that you won't even acknowledge my challenge to ReMine's analysis.

My prediction was right. Jope has not responded to my challenge of the ReMine analysis.

I claim that the initial conditions of Haldanes Dilemma are seldom satisfied on planet earth.
Evolution, both macro and micro, occur when the initial conditions of Haldanes hypotheses
are not met.

Conditions necessary for Haldanes dilemma to be true include homogeneity and free
flow of genes. There is no completely homogeneous habitat on earth. Some de nova mutations
restrict the free flow of genes by producing barriers to crossing. These are sometimes called
hybridization barriers. Mutations that produce hybridization barriers are known in the real
world.

Experimental evidence shows that the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma are not met. Haldanes Dilemma predicts that an allele from a nova nova mutation will not spread or even persist under these
conditions. There are many examples where an allele produced by a de nova mutation has spread
over the time scale of decades. Creationists sometimes call this microevolution, but it invalidates
Haldanes dilemma much the same.

Haldanes Dilemma also applies only to anagenesis, the transition of a single species to another
species. ReMine has acknowledged the fact that Haldanes Dilemma doesn't apply to cladogenesis.
Cladogenesis is the generation of many new species at the same time from a single species. Experimetnal evidence shows that most evolution can be explained as cladogenesis.

Even the yearly bouts of flu show that Haldanes Dilemma is invalid. Every year, new strains of
flu emerge with different sets of alleles. Haldanes Dilemma predicts that single alleles can not
take over populations even in the case of viruses. Clearly the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma
are invalid for flu viruses. More than one strain of flu comes up every year. So viruses make a
good counterexample to Haldanes Dilemma.

ReMine was incorrect when he claimed that Haldanes Dilemma invalidates macroevolution.
Jope was incorrect in repeating ReMine's claims. Jope has not refuted my arguments against
ReMine. So to this date, my prediction was correct.

[August Rode]

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 12:09:27 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 7, 2014 2:08:22 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.
> >
> > I was able to do so. If you can't show why I am incorrect, then you must consider the Dilemma to be resolved. I predict that you won't even acknowledge my challenge to ReMine's analysis.
>
> My prediction was right. Jope has not responded to my challenge of the ReMine analysis.

Not a difficult prediction to make, I'm afraid. Joel doesn't actually understand most of what little he reads. He knows this to some degree. Because he hates being seen as a sciolist, he stops commenting when his inscience becomes stronger than his chutzpah.

[jope]

I have already addressed your arguments on a different thread.
The notion of substitution by a more fitted organism, is central to the theory of evolution.
If if can be shown that the substitution of our putative primate ancestor could not have occurred within accepted evolutionary timescales;that alone would be an insurmountable problem for macroevolution. In other word, if anagenesis can be invalidated;that alone would mean that macoeveolution cannot happen. Macroeveolution cannot work with cladogenesis alone.
And it makes no sense to mention viruses, which have an extremely high reproduction rate.
Mammals do not have a high reproductive rate; in fact, they have one of the lowest in the animal kingdom.
Haldane calculated that organisms with low reproduction
rates, such as cows, could substitute a new beneficial mutation no more frequently than one per 300 generations.
In a hypothetical 10 million years of ape-to-human evolution, only 1,600 beneficial nucleotide substitutions could have occured.
Since humans and apes differ by about 80 millions nucleotides, there has not been enough time for difference to accumulate.
The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make the philogenetic tree scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.

[jope]

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:15:32 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 12:09:27 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 7, 2014 2:08:22 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.
>
> > >
>
> > > I was able to do so. If you can't show why I am incorrect, then you must consider the Dilemma to be resolved. I predict that you won't even acknowledge my challenge to ReMine's analysis.
>
> >
>
> > My prediction was right. Jope has not responded to my challenge of the ReMine analysis.
>
>
>
> Not a difficult prediction to make, I'm afraid. Joel doesn't actually understand most of what little he reads. He knows this to some degree. Because he hates being seen as a sciolist, he stops commenting when his inscience becomes stronger than his chutzpah.

I usually stop commenting ,when the percentage of personal attacks reaches 80%. That usually means that you are tired.

[August Rode]

On 25/06/2014 1:50 AM, jope wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:15:32 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 12:09:27 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 7, 2014 2:08:22 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.
>>>>
>>>> I was able to do so. If you can't show why I am incorrect, then you must consider the Dilemma to be resolved. I predict that you won't even acknowledge my challenge to ReMine's analysis.
>>>
>>> My prediction was right. Jope has not responded to my challenge of the ReMine analysis.
>>
>> Not a difficult prediction to make, I'm afraid. Joel doesn't actually understand most of what little he reads. He knows this to some degree. Because he hates being seen as a sciolist, he stops commenting when his inscience becomes stronger than his chutzpah.
> I usually stop commenting ,when the percentage of personal attacks reaches 80%. That usually means that you are tired.

80% of what?

Would you like me to go back in time, pull out an old post in which I
was perfectly (or at least reasonably) polite and show you how
infrequently you reply to inconvenient questions? It wouldn't be
difficult to do.

The fact is that you are *very* selective about what you will answer and
what you won't and it has nothing to do with personal attacks. It's
almost as though you *know* that there are things that you ought not
investigate lest they have an adverse effect on your faith. A faith that
needs to be shielded from the world is not a strong faith.

If you choose to think I'm tired when I resort to personal attack, I
cannot prevent you from doing so. That it doesn't comport with reality
is apparently beside the point.

[Darwin123]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:28:45 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:

> The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make the philogenetic tree scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.

The cost of substitution is not a constant independent of location. I have pointed it out again
and again. You have seldom respond to any of the scenarios that I have pointed out again and again.
You occasionally point out that scientists propose are hypothetical. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that Haldanes Dilemma is itself a hypothetical scenario within the theory of evolution.

The scenario that Haldane proposed was hypothetical, not proven to be real. Experimental
data on evolution has been explained with other hypothetical scenarios, each fitting real world
conditions as well or better than Haldane's hypothetical scenario.

The cost of substitution can be very, very low in the case of an inhomogeneous environment. The
'cost of substitution' is a concept that is contingent on organisms with mutated alleles competing against each other. If the environment is not homogenous, then the organisms with different alleles can live in different places without competing against each other.

This situation is frequently seen in the case of clines and ring species. I told you to look the words up before. The environment varies continuously within the habitat of a population. Each segment of the population has a different percentage of alleles. Different alleles take over different segments of the population.

Each segment is in effect a different species. Varieties on opposite sides of the cline can't cross and raise children. The varieties near the middle can. The different segments of the population can't compete against each other when they live in different environments. Therefore, there is very little cost of substitution. So your argument about a cost of substitution can't apply to a cline.

Current scenarios used to explain evolution relies on an inhomogeneous environment. You and Remind haven't addressed this. Punctuated equilibrium is a model that relies on an inhomogeneous environment. You can't dismiss the concept of an inhomogeneous environment when it is obvious environments are not homogeneous.

Remine dismissed small animals and microorganisms because they reproduce so fast. So he tacitly admitted that Haldanes Dilemma doesn't apply to small organisms. What he didn't admit that
Haldanes Dilemma really doesn't apply to mammals either. They reproduce slowly compared to insects. However, they differ between each other less than insects.

ReMine has not shown that mammals can't evolve in an inhomogeneous environment. Current models of how humans evolve hypothesize that the different hominids evolved in different places. Haldanes Dilemma hypothesizes one species evolving in one place where conditions are deteriorating but homogeneous.

Note that 3.5 billion years of our evolution occurred in microorganisms.

You have not addressed this issue of homogeneity. You just keep on repeating that Haldane proved evolution can't occur. Hence, you did not address the issue.

[Jope]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:27:47 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:28:45 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
>
>
> > The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make the philogenetic tree scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.
>
>
>
>
>
> The cost of substitution is not a constant independent of location. I have pointed it out again
>
> and again. You have seldom respond to any of the scenarios that I have pointed out again and again.

I am under the distinct impression that you only glance over my posts.
I have mentioned several times that the cost of substitution is a variable.

>
> You occasionally point out that scientists propose are hypothetical. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that Haldanes Dilemma is itself a hypothetical scenario within the theory of evolution.

Hypothetical? Haldane's Dilemma is as hypothetical as the theory of evolution itself. If you are going to maintain that more fitted organisms have replaced less fitted ones, over time;how can you ignore such fundamental biological process as the rate of nucleotides replacement.

>
>
>
> The scenario that Haldane proposed was hypothetical, not proven to be real. Experimental
>
> data on evolution has been explained with other hypothetical scenarios, each fitting real world
>
> conditions as well or better than Haldane's hypothetical scenario.
>
>
>
> The cost of substitution can be very, very low in the case of an inhomogeneous environment. The
>
> 'cost of substitution' is a concept that is contingent on organisms with mutated alleles competing against each other. If the environment is not homogenous, then the organisms with different alleles can live in different places without competing against each other.

You keep trying to find exceptions to Haldane's calculations. As I pointed out in my last post,Haldane's Dilemma needs only to invalidate anagenesis ,in order to invalidate the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is not possible without phyletic change.

>
>
>
> This situation is frequently seen in the case of clines and ring species. I told you to look the words up before. The environment varies continuously within the habitat of a population. Each segment of the population has a different percentage of alleles. Different alleles take over different segments of the population.
>
>
>
> Each segment is in effect a different species. Varieties on opposite sides of the cline can't cross and raise children. The varieties near the middle can. The different segments of the population can't compete against each other when they live in different environments. Therefore, there is very little cost of substitution. So your argument about a cost of substitution can't apply to a cline.

I don't need to dispute that at all. If there is no substitution;there is no substitution cost.
But I have to be repetitive: The theory of evolution requires the susbtitution of less fitted organisms.It may not be all the time .It could even be, only a small part of the time. But that substitution is essential to the theory.
Let's say that Haldane's Dilemma applies only to a specific homogeneous environment,which constitutes an existential threat to a living species.
If there is not enough time for susbtitution to occur,and if it is biologically impossible for susbtitution to occur;the phylogenetic tree cannot happen.
Cladogenesis is only a complementary scheme. Relocation and genetic drift do not even apply. The theory of evolution is simply not possible, without straight line phyletic change.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:27:47 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:28:45 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make the philogenetic tree scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The cost of substitution is not a constant independent of location. I have pointed it out again
>>
>> and again. You have seldom respond to any of the scenarios that I have pointed out again and again.
> I am under the distinct impression that you only glance over my posts.

After a while, your unsupportable claims become tedious.

[Jope]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:54:58 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On 25/06/2014 1:50 AM, jope wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:15:32 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >> On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 12:09:27 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> >>> On Saturday, June 7, 2014 2:08:22 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I was able to do so. If you can't show why I am incorrect, then you must consider the Dilemma to be resolved. I predict that you won't even acknowledge my challenge to ReMine's analysis.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> My prediction was right. Jope has not responded to my challenge of the ReMine analysis.
>
> >>
>
> >> Not a difficult prediction to make, I'm afraid. Joel doesn't actually understand most of what little he reads. He knows this to some degree. Because he hates being seen as a sciolist, he stops commenting when his inscience becomes stronger than his chutzpah.
>
> > I usually stop commenting ,when the percentage of personal attacks reaches 80%. That usually means that you are tired.
>
>
>
> 80% of what?
>
>
>
> Would you like me to go back in time, pull out an old post in which I
>
> was perfectly (or at least reasonably) polite and show you how
>
> infrequently you reply to inconvenient questions? It wouldn't be
>
> difficult to do.

Actually ,it would be. But I am under the impression that you are talking about the article:"The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat."
I tried really hard to explain the dualism between the mind and the brain .But you did not seem to be paying attention to my arguments.
Otherwise,you would not be asking me to explain such cognitive malfunction.
I said that the brain is the interface between the mind and the world.
Even though,we are living souls,we are identified with the body.
Imagine a driver who is completely identified with his car. A car running out of gas,would translate as : "I am thirsty", a flat tire: " My foot is aching",
problems with the headlights:" My vision is weakening".
Basically the driver has become his car. And if he is fitted within a narrow container,which is keeping him from seeing himself(You may use your imagination there);he may even deny his own existence.
At death,or even partially with most OBE's,it becomes evident that the mind is distinct from the body. The mind then is free from cognitive malfunctions.

[Jope]

What unsupportable claims?

[August Rode]

On 25/06/2014 10:05 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:54:58 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> On 25/06/2014 1:50 AM, jope wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:15:32 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 12:09:27 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 7, 2014 2:08:22 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was able to do so. If you can't show why I am incorrect, then you must consider the Dilemma to be resolved. I predict that you won't even acknowledge my challenge to ReMine's analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> My prediction was right. Jope has not responded to my challenge of the ReMine analysis.
>>>>
>>>> Not a difficult prediction to make, I'm afraid. Joel doesn't actually understand most of what little he reads. He knows this to some degree. Because he hates being seen as a sciolist, he stops commenting when his inscience becomes stronger than his chutzpah.
>>> I usually stop commenting ,when the percentage of personal attacks reaches 80%. That usually means that you are tired.
>>
>> 80% of what?
>>
>> Would you like me to go back in time, pull out an old post in which I
>> was perfectly (or at least reasonably) polite and show you how
>> infrequently you reply to inconvenient questions? It wouldn't be
>> difficult to do.
> Actually ,it would be.

It wouldn't.

> But I am under the impression that you are talking about the article:"The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat."

Along with dozens of other unanswered questions. You are *very*
selective about what you will respond to and what you won't.

> I tried really hard to explain the dualism between the mind and the brain .But you did not seem to be paying attention to my arguments.

I read your assertions. I found them unsupported by evidence and
therefore unconvincing. If you can't base your "argument" on sound
premises, that's your problem, not mine. "Paying attention to" and
"convinced by" aren't the same thing. For future reference, don't
continue to pretend that I haven't been paying attention to what you say
on any subject.

> Otherwise,you would not be asking me to explain such cognitive malfunction.
> I said that the brain is the interface between the mind and the world.

I asked you for the mechanism by which that is accomplished. You
declined to respond.

With specific regard to the clinical account _The Lost Mariner_, I asked
you if you believed that memories were stored in the mind or in the
brain. You didn't respond. Indeed, you've shown no indication that you
even bothered to read the account, something that would take only 10
minutes of your life.

> Even though,we are living souls,we are identified with the body.
> Imagine a driver who is completely identified with his car. A car running out of gas,would translate as : "I am thirsty", a flat tire: " My foot is aching",
> problems with the headlights:" My vision is weakening".
> Basically the driver has become his car. And if he is fitted within a narrow container,which is keeping him from seeing himself(You may use your imagination there);he may even deny his own existence.

I previously pointed out to you that when you can't be specific about
something, you fall back on bad analogies. You have just done so once
again. If *all* you can do with a topic is analogize about it badly,
then you really don't know anything about it.

> At death,or even partially with most OBE's,it becomes evident that the mind is distinct from the body.
> The mind then is free from cognitive malfunctions.

I never said it wasn't distinct. I've only said that to the best of our
knowledge, a mind is not independent from a brain. OBEs don't prove
independence for reasons that I've already stated.

[Darwin123]

I am not clear what you are talking about because I am not clear what you mean. Therefore, I
will ask a question about a hypothetical example. The example was taken from a science fiction television series. Star Trek Next Generation. I am not presenting this something that
represents current day fact. However, your answer will help me understand what you are
talking about.

On Star Trek: Next Generation, there is a robot that was designed to imitate human beings.
His name was Data. Although not initially human, it was programmed with a general drive to
aspire to be human rather than to imitate it. That is, he doesn't imitate individual actions of
humans. He tries to 'understand' what being human is. He was apparently programmed to
construct abstract models of human behavior and assimilate them.

He has behaviors that often seems analogous to human 'free choice' within certain boundaries.
There seems to be a 'random' component to it. A robot of identical design, Lore, decided to be human means to dominate and control other human beings. He has decided on behaviors similar to empathy and cooperation. However, it is not clear in the series how he makes the choices.

Some people question whether he has a soul. He himself has presented the hypothesis that he
does not have a soul. Mind readers can not read his mind. However, one minder reader has assured him that he may very well have a soul even though she can't read his mind. She points out that
there are extraterrestrial aliens who she can't read but who she thinks of as human. The absence of psychic proof is not evidence of the absence of sentience.

Many episodes relate the ethics of how to deal with him. There was at least one episode where the
legality of using him in dangerous experiments without his permission. The court decision was that
he should be treated in law as a human being with legal rights. One thing that came out is that we
can't know if any of the extraterrestrial aliens, or even humans, have souls.

Suppose that sometime in the next 10 years, computers very much like data are built. I admit
this is very unlikely, but I already said this is speculative. I want to know what you mean by
soul, so I am making up this model to understand your definition. Suppose that you actually
get to know one of these artificial creatures. You talk to it, you work with it, you interact with
it. You observe them making 'decisions', good and bad. They are all different, even though they
are designed the same way, because of their choices. You know very well that the choice
part of their software is guided by a random number generator, yet the behaviors created
by this software are complex.

These robots can be turned off. As in the case of real computers, turning them back on
sometimes generates random bits in their circuitry. They claim these are real experiences,
but you know it is a matter of solid state circuitry.

1) Does this computer have a soul in your opinion?

2) Should it be legal for people to do anything they like to these robots?

3) Do they have OBE?

4) What would you do if these robots became very common in the
world around you?
>

[Darwin123]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:44:01 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:27:47 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:28:45 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make the philogenetic tree scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.
>

<snip>

>> The cost of substitution can be very, very low in the case of an inhomogeneous environment. The
> > 'cost of substitution' is a concept that is contingent on organisms with mutated alleles competing against each other. If the environment is not homogenous, then the organisms with different alleles can live in different places without competing against each other.
>
> You keep trying to find exceptions to Haldane's calculations. As I pointed out in my last post,Haldane's Dilemma needs only to invalidate anagenesis ,in order to invalidate the theory of evolution.

However, that is not true. The theory of evolution from Darwin until today has always
included cladogenesis.

Since what little you know about science is 150 years, let me say something about Darwin. I
have read 'Origin of the Species' and 'Descent of Man'. Darwin gave many hypothetical scenarios
for evolution in specific situations. These scenarios do not precisely represent the hypotheses of Haleness Dilemma. Although Darwin considered anagenesis a possibility, most of his hypothetical
examples are cladogenesis.

Therefore, falsifying anagenesis does not falsify evolution.

>
> The theory of evolution is not possible without phyletic change.

Haldanes Dilemma does not hypothesize phyletic change. Haldane's analysis
applies to the inheritance of separate alleles. His analysis indicates that under
specified conditions, Several alleles from different de nova mutations can not spread
very far at the same time. They eventually compete with each other, stopping each
other from spreading.

Haldane did not differentiate between 'variety' and 'species'. He did not separate 'variety'
from 'sickness'. He did hypothesize that the alleles could be beneficial. Haldane did not
differentiate between macroevolution and microevolution.

LeMine and you did not mention this. Both of you ignore the fact that individual alleles
do take over in different locations, in apparent violation of Haldanes Dilemma. LeMine
misrepresents Haldane, and you misunderstand LeMine. I brought this up before, and you
refused to acknowledge it. Haldane in his article did not discuss the phyletics related to
the alleles. I predict that you will not address this issue.

Haldanes Dilemma is as applicable to the origin of varieties as it is to the origin of species.
Haldanes argument was just as applicable to the alleles that govern skin color or eye color
as they do to the evolution from Ardi to Homo. You really shouldn't people in different locations
to vary more than 300 alleles if you accept Haldanes Dilemma uncritically.
if you think that Haldanes Hypothesis blocks macroevolution, then you have to explain how microevolution occurs.

>
> > This situation is frequently seen in the case of clines and ring species. I told you to look the words up before. The environment varies continuously within the habitat of a population. Each segment of the population has a different percentage of alleles. Different alleles take over different segments of the population.
>
> > Each segment is in effect a different species. Varieties on opposite sides of the cline can't cross and raise children. The varieties near the middle can. The different segments of the population can't compete against each other when they live in different environments. Therefore, there is very little cost of substitution. So your argument about a cost of substitution can't apply to a cline.
>
> I don't need to dispute that at all. If there is no substitution;there is no substitution cost.
>
> But I have to be repetitive: The theory of evolution requires the susbtitution of less fitted organisms.It may not be all the time .It could even be, only a small part of the time. But that substitution is essential to the theory.

Actually, you are wrong. I will go back to Darwin again. In 'The Descent of Man', Darwin specifically says that the first species does not have to replace the newer species. He said that is what usually happens, but it does not happen all the time. In 'Origin of the Species', he discusses 'fossil species'.
A 'fossil species' is one which hasn't changed for a long time because it is located in one particular niche. Of course, the existence of such a niche implies inhomogeneity.

In 'Origin of the Species', Darwin uses the analogy of driving wedges into a log. When the log is full, every wedge that goes in causes one wedge to go out. However, the wedge that goes out does not have to near the wedge that goes in. The physics of the situations dictates that when a wedge goes in, the wedge that goes out can be anyplace in the log. Slight variations in the texture of the log dictate which wedges go out when one goes in.

Punctuated equilibrium hypothesizes that the total replacement of one allele by the other occurs during short lived disasters. A cline can last a long time even under deteriorating conditions. However, sudden disasters wipe out segments of the cline where there are mixed alleles.

Total replacement does not have to occur by competition. Haldane assumed that total replacement has to be caused by gradual replacement. In actuality, intermediates are often wiped out because of local disasters.

>
> Let's say that Haldane's Dilemma applies only to a specific homogeneous environment,which constitutes an existential threat to a living species.

Alright, fine. This is now a working hypothesis. Tell us when you want to throw this working hypothesis away. When you give up on it, tell me. Until you tell me that it is untrue, I will hold you to reason with it.
>
> If there is not enough time for substitution to occur,and if it is biologically impossible for susbtitution to occur;the phylogenetic tree cannot happen.

>
> Cladogenesis is only a complementary scheme. Relocation and genetic drift do not even apply. The theory of evolution is simply not possible, without straight line phyletic change.

Relocation does apply. I have already given you several counterexamples. Let me try again.

There is an area divided into hot/dry desert valley, a wet temperate hillside, and cold/dry mountain top. There is a population of camel-like creatures that extends from top to bottom. All the camels live in the temperate zone where they are more comfortable. They can move into valley or mountain top, and occasionally vacation there. However, they thrive only in the temperate zone.

A de nova mutation in the temperate zone occurs that gives a camel more fur. The descendants of this de nova mutation move to the mountain top because they are more comfortable there. They start a colony there of furry camels.

Another de nova mutation occurs giving the camel less fur. The descendants of these camels move into the valley, where they are more comfortable. In fact, the descendants of these camels thrive there.
They do not compete with ones on the mountain top, and they don't even compete with the camels in the temperate zone.

We now have a cline. There are furry camels on top of the mountain, bald camels in the desert, and temperate camels on the hill side. There is no cost of substitution because every camel chooses where it is comfortable. Even if they aren't too bright, the temperate zone has become a partial barrier to gene flow. Animals with the furry allele can't go to the valley.

Fossils sometimes form in the valley, where sediments accumulate because of gravity. However, fossils are very rare in the temperate zone because of erosion. Fossils never form on mountain tops.
So we have no fossil record of the variety that formed on the mountain top.

Beneficial mutations in the future keep going to either the mountain top or the valley. For example, the shortness allele starts to accumulate on the mountain top. The


Eventually, hybridization between valley and mountain top varieties becomes lethal. So many differences accumulate that the two types become incompatible in terms of reproduction.

There comes a big drought which lasts for a long time. Sort of a super drought, caused by any one of several 'accidents'. The desert expands. The ones in the temperature zone die out because they need water. A few are left on the desert valley and the some on the mountain top.

The camels in the temperate zone are wiped out. The drought lasts a long time. Maybe it was caused by an ice age. Eventually, the drought ends. There are de nova mutations that allow the ones on the mountain top to go to the hill side. There are de nova mutations that allow the ones in the desert valley to move to the hills side.

So tell me in this case where the 'cost of replacement' comes in. In the beginning, one allele doesn't replace another allele. The new varieties expand into regions where the original variety can't live anyway. The intermediate types are wiped out by a rather random disaster. The 'competition' doesn't wipe out intermediate types, since they are living in separate places anyway. Competition may take place when the two are brought together. However, the two varieties each have a shelter where they can avoid the other.

I predict that you can't tell me where 'the cost of replacement' is in this scenario. BTW: This type of scenario is very common in real biology. ReMine hasn't actually looked at current literature carefully.

So the two new varieties can't wipe each other out. They can't even assimilate each other, because they are incompatible.

I am of course describing a hypothetical scenario for the evolution of llama and camels. There are dozens of vaguely camel like species that appear in have gone extinct. I just described one possible chapter in the evolution of Bacterian camels and llamas.

Also note that Darwin in origin of the species did discuss evolution on mountain sides. He claimed that ice ages drove the evolution of many species living on the side of mountains. I propose that this sort of scenario was not considered by Haldane.
>

>
ReMine has blithely dismissed the general theory of punctuated equilibrium without looking at specific scenarios. He has raised on hypothetical scenario over the other hypothetical scenarios as being 'fact'. He has not looked at the specific models of how specific species form. ReMine hasn't even read Darwin carefully. He makes claims about what the theory of evolution 'says' that were not part of the original theory of evolution.

[Darwin123]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:44:01 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> Let's say that Haldane's Dilemma applies only to a specific homogeneous environment,which constitutes an existential threat to a living species.

Fine. Let us assume that.

>
> If there is not enough time for susbtitution to occur,and if it is biologically impossible for susbtitution to occur;the phylogenetic tree cannot happen.

You have immediately negated the hypothesis that you agreed to entertain for a while. You
didn't give any time for argument, let alone evolution.


Haldanes hypothesis applies only to a specific homogeneous environment, which we agree
poses an existential threat to any living species restricted to it. The numerical example given by Haldane shows that there may not have been enough time in a homogeneous environment for Ardipithicus to evolve into Homo. However, the current scientific claim is that Homo evolved in an in homogenous environment. In an inhomogeneous environment, there would be enough time for Ardipithicus to evolve into Homo.

Note that both Homo and Ardithepicus are genus names. I am assuming that the most recent common ancestor of human (Homo) and chimpanzees (Pan) was Ardithipicus.

>
> Cladogenesis is only a complementary scheme. Relocation and genetic drift do not even apply. The theory of evolution is simply not possible, without straight line phyletic change.

No it isn't. Cladogenesis what paleontologists think is the observed mode of evolution. Anagenesis is a mode that of evolution that Darwin thought was possible, not what always happened. Some modern paleontologists would claim that Darwin is wrong on that issue. Many modern paleontologists would claim that anagenesis has never been observed.

Haldane gave a hypothetical example where both cladogenesis and anagenesis is forbidden. These are two different conditions. In his hypothetical model, cladogenesis is impossible because the flow of genes is completely free. Anagenesis is impossible because the environment is homogeneous. So under the precise conditions hypothesized by Haldane, evolution can't occur by either cladogenesis or anagensis.

ReMine is tacitly assuming that those hypothetical conditions are always valid in the real world. This isn't true. In fact, most of the fossil evidence is consistent with cladogenesis.

My opinion is that both conditions are sometimes violated in the real world. However, the condition of homogeneity is usually violated. Cladogenesis is consistent with inhomogeneous environments. De nova mutations that partially prevent 'cross breeding' are rarer than de nova mutations that don't block gene flow. This is why cladogenesis is far more common than anagenesis.

There isn't even a propagation delay in Haldanes model. Any individual can mate with any other individual one immediately after the other no matter how big the habitat is. This is especially obvious in the case of clines. If every individual has an immediate opportunity to mate with every other individual in the habitat, then maybe cladogenesis couldn't occur. In fact, alleles accumulate differently in different parts of the cline.

I have provided references describing clines. Do I have to post them again, or will you acknowledge at least that I have posted the references? Let me ask you this. If Haldanes Dilemma were always applicable, then clines could not maintain themselves for any length of time. If each variety of individual directly competes with every other individual within a cline for mates, then one would think that the genome of the average individual would converge to something comfortable in the average environment. If the genetic flow is free, how come there are hybridization barriers for organisms on opposite sides of the cline?

Note that I have not in the above paragraph presented an opinion on the taxonomy within a cline.
I don't care about the phyletic nature of the change, or even if there is a phyletic level. Haldane did
not mention phyletic levels in his article. Phyletic levels are irrelevant to Haldanes argument.

You constantly pin issues of phyletic level to studies that focus on genes. These studies do not mention phyletic level since there is no part of the genetic code known to focus on phyletic level. That is the entire reason, the only reason, that you postulated a Phenotypic Shield. You have been asked again and again how a phyletic level is determined by the genetic code. You have not come up with an answer. Further, none of the scientists that you quote can determine the phyletic level of an allele. Since Haldane is really talking about individual alleles, not phyletic level, his argument can only be applied to individual alleles.

I predict that you will never directly address the issue of phyletic level, although you may glibly dismiss what I say on the basis of 'obvious'. I have given speculative but concrete scenarios as possibilities, while you have given broad generalities as facts. I further predict that you will bring up ReMine yet again at some future point without acknowledging that anyone came up with an argument against him. Readers should remember that I did present a cogent argument against ReMines fantasies.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >
> > You have not addressed this issue of homogeneity. You just keep on repeating that Haldane proved evolution can't occur. Hence, you did not address the issue.

Jope still hasn't addressed the issue. Instead, he presents a gambit. He says that he will entertain the notion that anagenesis is only forbidden under a specific set of conditions hypothesized by Haldane. Then he immediately says that anagenesis is forbidden in general.

This shows that Jope likes gambits over logic. He tries to redirect topics using gambits. However, he never follows through on his gambits. I predict that he will come up with another gambit soon. However, Jope can't keep a promise even to himself !-)

[Jope]

On Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:41:25 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On 25/06/2014 10:05 PM, Jope wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:54:58 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >> On 25/06/2014 1:50 AM, jope wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:15:32 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >>>> On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 12:09:27 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 7, 2014 2:08:22 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> If you are unable to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> I was able to do so. If you can't show why I am incorrect, then you must consider the Dilemma to be resolved. I predict that you won't even acknowledge my challenge to ReMine's analysis.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> My prediction was right. Jope has not responded to my challenge of the ReMine analysis.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Not a difficult prediction to make, I'm afraid. Joel doesn't actually understand most of what little he reads. He knows this to some degree. Because he hates being seen as a sciolist, he stops commenting when his inscience becomes stronger than his chutzpah.
>
> >>> I usually stop commenting ,when the percentage of personal attacks reaches 80%. That usually means that you are tired.
>
> >>
>
> >> 80% of what?
>
> >>
>
> >> Would you like me to go back in time, pull out an old post in which I
>
> >> was perfectly (or at least reasonably) polite and show you how
>
> >> infrequently you reply to inconvenient questions? It wouldn't be
>
> >> difficult to do.
>
> > Actually ,it would be.
>
>
>
> It wouldn't.

>
>
>
> > But I am under the impression that you are talking about the article:"The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat."
>
>
>
> Along with dozens of other unanswered questions. You are *very*
>
> selective about what you will respond to and what you won't.

You and Darwin123 are much more selective than I am.

>
>
>
> > I tried really hard to explain the dualism between the mind and the brain .But you did not seem to be paying attention to my arguments.
>
>
>
> I read your assertions. I found them unsupported by evidence and
>
> therefore unconvincing. If you can't base your "argument" on sound
>
> premises, that's your problem, not mine. "Paying attention to" and
>
> "convinced by" aren't the same thing. For future reference, don't
>
> continue to pretend that I haven't been paying attention to what you say
>
> on any subject.

When you keep asking asking the same question, after I have already provided the answer,several times;that is an unavoidable conclusion.

>
>
>
> > Otherwise,you would not be asking me to explain such cognitive malfunction.
>
> > I said that the brain is the interface between the mind and the world.
>
>
>
> I asked you for the mechanism by which that is accomplished. You
>
> declined to respond.

"Mechanism" is not an appropriate word ,when talking about the spiritual realm.
If you insist on reducing everything into an observed, material and measurable event;those things will always escape you.

>
>
>
> With specific regard to the clinical account _The Lost Mariner_, I asked
>
> you if you believed that memories were stored in the mind or in the
>
> brain. You didn't respond. Indeed, you've shown no indication that you
>
> even bothered to read the account, something that would take only 10
>
> minutes of your life.

I have made it clear that it is stored in the brain. The mind is identified with the body,until death.But Obe's sometimes bring the dualism into evidence.

>
>
>
> > Even though,we are living souls,we are identified with the body.
>
> > Imagine a driver who is completely identified with his car. A car running out of gas,would translate as : "I am thirsty", a flat tire: " My foot is aching",
>
> > problems with the headlights:" My vision is weakening".
>
> > Basically the driver has become his car. And if he is fitted within a narrow container,which is keeping him from seeing himself(You may use your imagination there);he may even deny his own existence.
>
>
>
> I previously pointed out to you that when you can't be specific about
>
> something, you fall back on bad analogies. You have just done so once
>
> again. If *all* you can do with a topic is analogize about it badly,
>
> then you really don't know anything about it.

You seem to be having a really hard time with illustrations.
It is my fault ,if you are completely unable to think outside the box?
You want me to provide things like the weight and sizes of angels.I cannot do that. You have to leave the math behind.Those things cannot be measured.

>
>
>
> > At death,or even partially with most OBE's,it becomes evident that the mind is distinct from the body.
>
> > The mind then is free from cognitive malfunctions.
>
>
>
> I never said it wasn't distinct. I've only said that to the best of our
>
> knowledge, a mind is not independent from a brain. OBEs don't prove
>
> independence for reasons that I've already stated.

Step-1 Subject sees his or her body lying in the bed,while floating near the ceiling
Step-2 Subject is able to observe what is happening outside and verify the accuracy of said observation later.
Those two things clearly suggest that the mind/self is distinct from the body.
Have you looked into it? Do you have an alternate hypothesis?

>
>
>
> >> The fact is that you are *very* selective about what you will answer and
>
> >> what you won't and it has nothing to do with personal attacks. It's
>
> >> almost as though you *know* that there are things that you ought not
>
> >> investigate lest they have an adverse effect on your faith. A faith that
>
> >> needs to be shielded from the world is not a strong faith.

I have investigated everything ,including atheistic arguments. But you and most other atheists have come to the conclusion that investigating supernatural events is unwarranted,since there is no valid scientific research on the subject.
Interestingly enough,should a respectable scientist decide to investigate those things,he would quickly become the object of derision and would most likely lose his job. When it comes to the supernatural, science cannot help you. You are on your own.
I know you don't like illustrations.But the image that comes to mind, when scientists try to address OBE ,is that of a cat trying to touch the water with its front paw. Skittish and dismissive.

[Jope]

That is a bit of a crazy post. In real life ,Data is nothing but a computer .Shaping a computer in the form of a human being ,does not make human.
In order to be sentient,you must have a soul. Animals do have souls,according to the Bible.
A robot is nothing but a series of electro-mechanical functions driven by a software.

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:54:22 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> That is a bit of a crazy post. In real life ,Data is nothing but a computer .Shaping a computer in the form of a human being ,does not make human.

Every post where you mention the Phenotypic Shield are crazy. There isn't any more evidence for a Phenotypic Shield than there is that a machine can be designed to respond like a human being. Calling an allele a 'mutation' does not enable the repair enzymes to fix it.

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:45:56 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > Along with dozens of other unanswered questions. You are *very*
>
> >
>
> > selective about what you will respond to and what you won't.
> You and Darwin123 are much more selective than I am.

I am selective in the sense that I try to stay on topic. I would rather not discuss OBE
because it has little to do with evolution. However, I have generally answered your
questions to the best of my ability. You do not acknowledge it. For instance, you
keep on saying that I have not addressed the theory of ReMine and Haldane.

>
> > > I tried really hard to explain the dualism between the mind and the brain .But you did not seem to be paying attention to my arguments.

Who the Creationist cares about OBE? I started this thread to talk about Haldanes Dilemma. Unless you can come up with a connection between Haldanes Dilemma and OBE, please keep OBE out of my thread.

This goes for you too, August !-)


Tell us how any variation in genetic patterns develop if Haldanes Dilemma is generally
applicable! If you can work OBE into it, be myst guest!

>
> > I read your assertions. I found them unsupported by evidence and
> > therefore unconvincing. If you can't base your "argument" on sound

> > "convinced by" aren't the same thing. For future reference, don't
> > continue to pretend that I haven't been paying attention to what you say
> > on any subject.
>
> When you keep asking asking the same question, after I have already provided the answer,several times;that is an unavoidable conclusion.
>

How can clines form if the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma always hold?

The link at the bottom describes clines. Note that the percentage of different alleles varies over space.

The article says that case of Larus gulls introduces questions as to what constitutes a species. However, the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma do not require a taxonomic definition. The analysis suggests that under the conditions hypothesized in his article, alleles simultaneously spread at the same time due to competition between them.

So what happened in the case of the Larus gulls? In fact, what happens in the case of any cline?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)
'More technically, clines consist of ecotypes or forms of species that exhibit gradual phenotypic and/or genetic differences over a geographical area, typically as a result of environmental heterogeneity. Genetically, clines result from the change of allele frequencies within the gene pool of the group of taxa in question.[2][3][4] Clines may manifest in time and/or space.[5]
...Ring species[6] are a distinct type of cline where the geographical distribution in question is circular in shape, so that the two ends of the cline overlap with one another, giving two adjacent populations that rarely interbreed due to the cumulative effect of the many changes in phenotype along the cline. The populations elsewhere along the cline interbreed with their geographically adjacent populations as in a standard cline. Ring species present an interesting problem for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species, as chain species are closely related to speciation (in this case, parapatric).
In the case of Larus gulls, the habitats of the end populations even overlap, which introduces questions as to what constitutes a species: nowhere along the cline can a line be drawn between the populations, but they are unable to interbreed.[7] However a recent study (Liebers et al., 2004) has provided genetic evidence that this example is far more complicated than presented here, and likely does not constitute a typical ring species'

There is no 'phyletic change' defined by Haldanes Dilemma. The analysis assumes that a new species forms when enough alleles accumulate. However, the analysis does not distinguish between 'phyletic mutations' and 'unphyletic mutations'. If 'Haldanes Dilemma' was generally true, you could not see clines whether or not you call them 'ring species' or 'allele gradients'. The existence of clines contradicts the universality of Haldanes Dilemma.

If you bother to compare the description of the Larus gulls to the analysis of Haldane, you will see that the two are not the same. The gulls don't pay a significant 'cost of replacement' because they have been living in different locations through most of their evolution. The two ends of the cline got joined together recently. However, there was no 'cost of replacement' while the cline was forming.

Please respond to this example just to show you can read articles in their entirety. I don't think that you have been really reading what anyone else wrote to completion. I think that you bring up supernatural as a distraction! Its just Sand Man in the eyes!

[Darwin123]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:44:01 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:27:47 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:28:45 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:

>
> > > The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make the philogenetic tree scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.
>

I have shown you how for specific environments alleles can be replaced without paying a 'cost of replacement'. You have never addressed the likelihood of these scenarios. You just keep on repeating that the cost 'has to be paid regardless of the environment'.

Most of the cases that I have presented involve an inhomogeneous environment. You have not once said that inhomogeneous environments are improbable. This is too bad, because I could have called your claim nonsense if you had. Real world environments are inhomogeneous. The environments commonly hypothesized in scientific models are inhomogeneous.


Your claim is false no matter how many times you repeat it. Alleles can be replaced under many conditions without paying a cost of replacement.

Alleles can be wiped out in large extinction events. Large extinction events are not part of the 'cost of replacement.' Alleles in small populations can be wiped out by 'genetic drift'. This is not part of the cost of replacement. The cost of replacement is significant only in populations where every living organism gets an opportunity to compete against every other organism. This is often not the case in an inhomogeneous environment.

> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The cost of substitution is not a constant independent of location. I have pointed it out again
> > and again. You have seldom respond to any of the scenarios that I have pointed out again and again.
> I am under the distinct impression that you only glance over my posts.
> I have mentioned several times that the cost of substitution is a variable.

This is untrue. For example, you stated in this post that 'the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.' This means that the cost of replacement is a constant in the context that we are talking about it. I dispute that there is any one 'cost of replacement' that is independent of environment.

It doesn't matter whether you said that 'the cost of substitution is a variable.' I have always disagreed with you on whether the cost of substitution is always large enough to prevent an allele from taking over. The word 'variable' is another fancy word that you stole from a mathematics course you didn't understand. ReMines claim is specifically that the cost of substitution is always high in every environment and every context.

It doesn't matter with regards to evolution if the cost of substitution is sometimes high. I have agreed that the specific conditions described in Haldanes Dilemma sometimes hold true. I have agreed that anagenesis is very rare. Anagenesis would be the only possible result if the environment were homogeneous. It doesn't even matter if the conditions described by Haldanes Dilemma applies to most mutations. Most evolution is said to occur when the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma do not hold true.

You keep on dodging this point, just like ReMine. You claim that I don't read your posts. It is the other way around. ReMine claims that the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma applied to the evolution of humans from other tail less primates. I rebut ReMines claim. You think that the occasional homogeneity in the environment is enough to stop macroevolution. I rebut that claim.

The only way to prove that I am wrong is to show that the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma are universal to a high degree. You have not even tried to do that. ReMine did not try to do that. You two have only supported without any evidence that this describes the only model for human evolution.

You should not claim that I have ignored fundamental facts about evolution. You have said that the fundamental theory of evolution requires total replacement of an allele over the entire earth. Alleles can be replaced in small habitats that overlap other habitats. However, these small habitats do not have to be closed systems. Haldanes Dilemma only applies to a closed habitat that is uniform over its entire region. Hence, Haldanes Dilemma is not fundamental. Haldanes Dilemma is only a model specific to a certain restricted type of environment.

The 2000 de nova mutations (oh, make that 10,000) that are in every humans ancestry could have spread during overlapping intervals of time because the environment is not homogeneous. The different alleles may are supposed to have accumulated in different places, not over different time intervals. There could be an interval of time where the alleles from 10,000 de nova mutations are spreading to different parts of an inhomogeneous environment. One allele can be spreading in one place and another allele can be spreading in another place. You have not rationalized your belief that the alleles have to spread all over the place at the same rate.

>
> > You occasionally point out that scientists propose are hypothetical. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that Haldanes Dilemma is itself a hypothetical scenario within the theory of evolution.
>
> Hypothetical?

Yes, hypothetical. H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-T-I-C-A-L

>Haldane's Dilemma is as hypothetical as the theory of evolution itself.

The theory of evolution is a description to apply over a large range of conditions. That is why it is called 'the theory of evolution'. Haldanes Dilemma is a description of what happens over a very narrow range of conditions. Scientists call this a model.

Please learn to distinguish between a model and a theory. Evolution is a theory. Haldanes Dilemma is a model. Newton's Laws of Motion are a theory. Hookes Law is a model.

> If you are going to maintain that more fitted organisms have replaced less fitted ones, over time;how >can you ignore such fundamental biological process as the rate of nucleotides replacement.
>

I have not ignored the rate of nucleotide replacement. I never made a claim as to the physical laws that govern nucleotide chemistry. I have disputed the claim that the cost of replacement is always high. The cost of replacement has nothing to do with any physical model of nucleotide replacement.

Haldanes Dilemma comes about because organisms when alleles from different de nova mutations immediately compete with each other. You have said this, repeating what ReMine has said. Therefore, anything that prevents immediate competition between organisms allows evolution to occur.

Anytime a population expands into a different environment, Haldanes dilemma is violated. Haldane specifically made the claim that the population be in a steady state because of competition. If something wipes out most of the population every few generations, then the population is increasing every few generations. Haldanes Dilemma does not apply during the increase.

ReMine does not even look at the models by paleontologists of how humans evolved. He ignores other examples of macroevolution completely. He admits that evolution can still happen in small organisms. By intentionally dismissing all evolution accept primate evolution, he dismisses most of the laboratory evidence for evolution.

ReMines criteria for dismal is artificial since it distracts from the real issue. The real issue is whether several different alleles can spread at the same time. If different can't spread at the same time, then the rate of evolution becomes critical. If you have one thousand different alleles, then they have to occur one after the other. Evolution can still occur in a small organism, but not in a large animal like a primate. If they can occur at the same time, then the size of the population makes a bigger difference. A population of one million primates could have different chromosome channeled into different environments at the same time.

You will continue to ignore what I say. You bring up OBE, possession, crystal therapy or anything else that you think will shock atheists. You will start new threads on things you know even less about, like inflation theory.

However, you will never directly address any of my real rebuttals because you are not a philosopher! You are even less of a philosopher than you are a scientist!

> > The cost of substitution can be very, very low in the case of an inhomogeneous environment. The
>
> >
>
> > 'cost of substitution' is a concept that is contingent on organisms with mutated alleles competing against each other. If the environment is not homogenous, then the organisms with different alleles can live in different places without competing against each other.
>
> You keep trying to find exceptions to Haldane's calculations. As I pointed out in my last post,Haldane's Dilemma needs only to invalidate anagenesis ,in order to invalidate the theory of evolution.
>
> The theory of evolution is not possible without phyletic change.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This situation is frequently seen in the case of clines and ring species. I told you to look the words up before. The environment varies continuously within the habitat of a population. Each segment of the population has a different percentage of alleles. Different alleles take over different segments of the population.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Each segment is in effect a different species. Varieties on opposite sides of the cline can't cross and raise children. The varieties near the middle can. The different segments of the population can't compete against each other when they live in different environments. Therefore, there is very little cost of substitution. So your argument about a cost of substitution can't apply to a cline.
>
> I don't need to dispute that at all. If there is no substitution;there is no substitution cost.
>
> But I have to be repetitive: The theory of evolution requires the susbtitution of less fitted organisms.It may not be all the time .It could even be, only a small part of the time. But that substitution is essential to the theory.

Substitution does take place. The final results are not always caused by competition between organisms.

>
> Let's say that Haldane's Dilemma applies only to a specific homogeneous environment,which constitutes an existential threat to a living species.
>
> If there is not enough time for susbtitution to occur,and if it is biologically impossible for susbtitution to occur;the phylogenetic tree cannot happen.

However, there is enough time for substitution to occur within small regions. Some alleles colonize one habitat, other alleles colonize another habitat. Since there is enough time for substitution to occur in different regions, a phylogenetic tree can occur.

I predict you will never come up with a rational reason for accepting Haldanes Dilemma as a universal law. You will keep on repeating that there is not enough time for substitution to occur even when examples are given where it did occur.


Okay, I wasted a day on this. I think it is time for a REAL vacation.

I shall return! But not soon!

[Jope]

On Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:05:19 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:44:01 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:27:47 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:28:45 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > The cost of substitution is the reproductive rate required to make the philogenetic tree scenario plausible. If the cost cannot be paid, then the scenario is not plausible. And the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.
>
> >
>
> I have shown you how for specific environments alleles can be replaced without paying a 'cost of replacement'. You have never addressed the likelihood of these scenarios. You just keep on repeating that the cost 'has to be paid regardless of the environment'.
>
>
>
> Most of the cases that I have presented involve an inhomogeneous environment. You have not once said that inhomogeneous environments are improbable. This is too bad, because I could have called your claim nonsense if you had. Real world environments are inhomogeneous. The environments commonly hypothesized in scientific models are inhomogeneous.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your claim is false no matter how many times you repeat it. Alleles can be replaced under many conditions without paying a cost of replacement.
>
>
>
> Alleles can be wiped out in large extinction events. Large extinction events are not part of the 'cost of replacement.' Alleles in small populations can be wiped out by 'genetic drift'. This is not part of the cost of replacement. The cost of replacement is significant only in populations where every living organism gets an opportunity to compete against every other organism. This is often not the case in an inhomogeneous environment.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The cost of substitution is not a constant independent of location. I have pointed it out again
>
> > > and again. You have seldom respond to any of the scenarios that I have pointed out again and again.
>
> > I am under the distinct impression that you only glance over my posts.
>
> > I have mentioned several times that the cost of substitution is a variable.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is untrue. For example, you stated in this post that 'the cost has to be paid , regardless of the environment.' This means that the cost of replacement is a constant in the context that we are talking about it. I dispute that there is any one 'cost of replacement' that is independent of environment.
>
>
>
> It doesn't matter whether you said that 'the cost of substitution is a variable.' I have always disagreed with you on whether the cost of substitution is always large enough to prevent an allele from taking over. The word 'variable' is another fancy word that you stole from a mathematics course you didn't understand. ReMines claim is specifically that the cost of substitution is always high in every environment and every context.
>
>
>
> It doesn't matter with regards to evolution if the cost of substitution is sometimes high. I have agreed that the specific conditions described in Haldanes Dilemma sometimes hold true. I have agreed that anagenesis is very rare. Anagenesis would be the only possible result if the environment were homogeneous. It doesn't even matter if the conditions described by Haldanes Dilemma applies to most mutations. Most evolution is said to occur when the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma do not hold true.

Where did you get that from?
Have you looked at the phylogenetic tree lately? It is essentially based on substitution.
A theory of evolution where the more fitted does not replace the less fitted,would be something of your own making.
Relocation,genetic drift and population size do not interfere at all with Haldane's dilemma.
In order for susbtitution to occur ,the cost must be paid. The rate of nucleotides substitution has to be taken into account,whenever susbtitution occurs. Haldane's dilemma is about susbtitution cost,where a new organism has replaced an older one. Such a scheme is an essential part of macroevolution,even though there are other schemes.
And you are forcing me to repeat myself.
Scenario 1
Supposed there is a change in the environment which constitutes an existential threat to a current living species.
Supposed there is a new mutation which makes it possible for the new mutants to survive.
Substitution will eventually occur ,because the current species will be disposed off by the environment. The rate of substitution will not really matter in the end.
Scenario 2
Supposed that the environment is not lethal but a more fitted organism has emerged .
The mortality rate of the new organism has to be lower in order for susbtitution to occur.
Given a generous time frame of ten million years for the more fitted man to have replaced his ancestral primate;there is not enough time for that susbtitution to occur.
The phylogenetic tree includes straight line susbtitutions of less fitted species. Look it up.There is no way around that.
In order to solve Haldane's dilemma ,you would have to show that phyletic change is not necessary for the theory of evolution. And that's my point. And I don't have to repeat it anymore.

[Jope]

On Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:10:26 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:45:56 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>
> > > Along with dozens of other unanswered questions. You are *very*
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > selective about what you will respond to and what you won't.
>
> > You and Darwin123 are much more selective than I am.
>
> I am selective in the sense that I try to stay on topic. I would rather not discuss OBE
>
> because it has little to do with evolution. However, I have generally answered your
>
> questions to the best of my ability. You do not acknowledge it. For instance, you
>
> keep on saying that I have not addressed the theory of ReMine and Haldane.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > I tried really hard to explain the dualism between the mind and the brain .But you did not seem to be paying attention to my arguments.
>
>
>
> Who the Creationist cares about OBE? I started this thread to talk about Haldanes Dilemma. Unless you can come up with a connection between Haldanes Dilemma and OBE, please keep OBE out of my thread.

If I can show that the mind is distinct form the brain;that would pose an even greater dilemma for the theory of evolution.

>
>
>
> This goes for you too, August !-)
>
>
>
>
>
> Tell us how any variation in genetic patterns develop if Haldanes Dilemma is generally
>
> applicable! If you can work OBE into it, be myst guest!
>
> >
>
> > > I read your assertions. I found them unsupported by evidence and
>
> > > therefore unconvincing. If you can't base your "argument" on sound
>
> > > "convinced by" aren't the same thing. For future reference, don't
>
> > > continue to pretend that I haven't been paying attention to what you say
>
> > > on any subject.
>
> >
>
> > When you keep asking asking the same question, after I have already provided the answer,several times;that is an unavoidable conclusion.
>
> >
>
> How can clines form if the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma always hold?
>
>
>
> The link at the bottom describes clines. Note that the percentage of different alleles varies over space.
>
>
>
> The article says that case of Larus gulls introduces questions as to what constitutes a species. However, the conditions of Haldanes Dilemma do not require a taxonomic definition. The analysis suggests that under the conditions hypothesized in his article, alleles simultaneously spread at the same time due to competition between them.
>
>
>
> So what happened in the case of the Larus gulls? In fact, what happens in the case of any cline?
>
>
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)
>
> 'More technically, clines consist of ecotypes or forms of species that exhibit gradual phenotypic and/or genetic differences over a geographical area, typically as a result of environmental heterogeneity. Genetically, clines result from the change of allele frequencies within the gene pool of the group of taxa in question.[2][3][4] Clines may manifest in time and/or space.[5]
>
> ...Ring species[6] are a distinct type of cline where the geographical distribution in question is circular in shape, so that the two ends of the cline overlap with one another, giving two adjacent populations that rarely interbreed due to the cumulative effect of the many changes in phenotype along the cline. The populations elsewhere along the cline interbreed with their geographically adjacent populations as in a standard cline. Ring species present an interesting problem for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species, as chain species are closely related to speciation (in this case, parapatric).
>
> In the case of Larus gulls, the habitats of the end populations even overlap, which introduces questions as to what constitutes a species: nowhere along the cline can a line be drawn between the populations, but they are unable to interbreed.[7] However a recent study (Liebers et al., 2004) has provided genetic evidence that this example is far more complicated than presented here, and likely does not constitute a typical ring species'
>
>
>
> There is no 'phyletic change' defined by Haldanes Dilemma.

You specifically said that Haldane 's dilemma applies only to anagenesis. Have you forgotten already?
Haldane's dilemma cannot be solved. You need to make peace with that fact.

The analysis assumes that a new species forms when enough alleles accumulate. However, the analysis does not distinguish between 'phyletic mutations' and 'unphyletic mutations'. If 'Haldanes Dilemma' was generally true, you could not see clines whether or not you call them 'ring species' or 'allele gradients'. The existence of clines contradicts the universality of Haldanes Dilemma.
>
>
>
> If you bother to compare the description of the Larus gulls to the analysis of Haldane, you will see that the two are not the same. The gulls don't pay a significant 'cost of replacement' because they have been living in different locations through most of their evolution. The two ends of the cline got joined together recently. However, there was no 'cost of replacement' while the cline was forming.

Like I said before,I don't even need to dispute those assertions. It is enough to show that phyletic susbtitution cannot happen.

[Darwin123]

1) You have not shown that phyletic substitution can not happen.
2) You have not shown that the case of these gulls isn't phyletic substitution
at separate locations.
3) You have not shown that Haldanes Dilemma is generally valid.

I am presenting the gulls as evidence that Haldanes Dilemma is not generally valid.
However, Haldane never used the phrase 'phyletic substitution'. That is another phrase that
you made up just to appear smart.

If you insist that Haldanes Dilemma refers to 'phyletic change', then find me one place in
either Haldanes article or ReMines article that uses the phrase 'phyletic substitution.' I don't
know what 'phyletic substitution' is. I am willing to bet that no one else has written anything
on 'phyletic substitution'. 'Phyletic substitution' is yet another fantasy.


I am presenting the gulls as evidence that Haldanes Dilemma is not generally valid. I won't
bother to 'refute' the impossibility of 'phyletic substitution' because I no one other than Jope
knows what it means.

[Jope]

Phyletic substitution simply refers to the susbtitution of a less fitted phylum,an essential theme in macroeveolution. Therefore ,it is semantically correct .
In order for such substitution to occur ,a number of nucleotides have to be replaced. Now, the rate of nucleotides substitution is a variable. In the case of bacteria,it is very fast. But In the case of mammals ,it is very slow.
And in the case of Ape to Man substiution,Haldane posited that that there has not been enough time ,giving evolutionary time scale, for enough nucleotide susbtitutions to have occured.
Haldane calculated, that on average it took about 300 generations for a beneficial allele to go from initial appearance to being present in all members of a population (the allele is "fixed" in the population).
Since humans and apes differ in 4.8 × 10'7(10 to the seventh power )genes, there has not been enough time for difference to accumulate. Only 1,667 nucleotide substitutions in genes could have occurred if their divergence was ten million years ago.
You have offered instances where susbtitutions do not have to happen. But you have not refuted those numbers.
Unless you can come up with different calculations,you need to stop arguing against Haldane's Dilemma.

[Darwin123]

Actually, I did refute those numbers. You may recall that I said that I didn't believe the 300 generations. However, your selective memory filtered out those comments I made that you
find uncomfortable.

I am sure that I questioned those probabilities. I question the number of de nova mutation needed to make the human species. I questioned the value of the cost of substitution being constant. I questioned most numbers in that paper. You never refuted my doubts about the numbers. I asked you where these numbers came from several times.

Your claim that I never questioned the numbers is very close to a lie. You know that I questioned the numbers. Yet you glibly say that I never questioned them.

You never defend your statements. When I challenge your lies, you merely throw down another lie.

>
> Unless you can come up with different calculations,you need to stop arguing against Haldane's Dilemma.

That isn't true. You argue against Haldanes Dilemma without doing any calculations. You haven't checked the calculations. You can't even do the calculations. You don't know anything about statistics. You have frequently quoted probabilities that you can't support. I, on the other hand, often provide numbers.

You frequently dismiss the value of statistics. How can you insist that Haldanes calculation is correct? Especially since you don't understand statistics?

[Jope]

Not believing and refuting are two different things.
Haldane maintained that it would take 300 generations for a nucleotide to completely replace and old one. How long do think it should take?
For evolution to occur, 'old' genes must be replaced by 'new', more advanced genes. This replacement has to occur in the entire population of a species if it is to evolve into another species.

>
>
>
> I am sure that I questioned those probabilities. I question the number of de nova mutation needed to make the human species. I questioned the value of the cost of substitution being constant. I questioned most numbers in that paper. You never refuted my doubts about the numbers. I asked you where these numbers came from several times.
>
>
>
> Your claim that I never questioned the numbers is very close to a lie. You know that I questioned the numbers. Yet you glibly say that I never questioned them.
>
>
>
> You never defend your statements. When I challenge your lies, you merely throw down another lie.
>
> >
>
> > Unless you can come up with different calculations,you need to stop arguing against Haldane's Dilemma.
>
>
>
> That isn't true. You argue against Haldanes Dilemma without doing any calculations. You haven't checked the calculations. You can't even do the calculations. You don't know anything about statistics. You have frequently quoted probabilities that you can't support. I, on the other hand, often provide numbers.
>
>
>
> You frequently dismiss the value of statistics. How can you insist that Haldanes calculation is correct? Especially since you don't understand statistics?

You are grasping at straws here.
I don't find Haldane's dilemma to be that complicated.
It takes 300 generations for a nucleotide to completely replace and old one. (30÷10%)
How many nucleotides could be replaced in the 10 million years generously offered by Haldane? 1667
(10,000,000yrs÷20yrs x 300 generations)

At this rate of replacement, it would take 500 billion years for just 1% of the genes to be replaced. One percent change is not enough to produce any significant speciation.
Unless you can offer new calculations,I kindly suggest that you leave Haldane's Dilemma alone.
And you shouldn't be and angry at me,if the theory of evolution is so replete with flaws,some of them fatal.

[Darwin123]

On Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:20:26 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On Saturday, June 28, 2014 10:04:33 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> > > > 3) You have not shown that Haldanes Dilemma is generally valid.

> > Actually, I did refute those numbers. You may recall that I said that I didn't believe the 300 generations. However, your selective memory filtered out those comments I made that you

> > find uncomfortable.
>
> Not believing and refuting are two different things.
>
> Haldane maintained that it would take 300 generations for a nucleotide to completely replace and old one. How long do think it should take?

This estimate of his is only partially true. His falsification only holds true when the cost of replacement is high enough to prevent more than one nucleotide being replaced at any one
time. That would only be plausible in an environment that was completely homogeneous.

According to his logic, it would take 300 generations to replace any number of nucleotides
when the cost of replacement is zero. If the cost of replacement was zero, you could have
thousands of nucleotides being replaced at the same time. My position is that there are conditions
under which the cost of replacement is very low because there are shelters for each nucleotide
where they don't have to compete strongly with other nucleotides.


Okay. You want my estimate for a population the size of the population in his example?

I believe that most species start out as clines, where their environment is broken up into
smaller habitats. Separate nucleotides are beneficial in separate habitats.

To replace one nucleotide in one habitat, it would take at least 300 generations.

To replace two nucleotides in two habitats, it would take at least 300 generations.

To replace 3 nucleotides, it would take at least 300 generations.

To replace 100 nucleotides in a highly inhomogeneous environment, it would take
300 generations.

I disagree with Haldanes conclusion that only one beneficial allele could spread through
an environment at any one time. I have repeated again and again that I hypothesize many
alleles spreading through the population in the same interval of time.

If the cost of substitution were the only thing limiting the rate at which species emerge, and if
real environments are highly inhomogeneous, then it could take as little as 300 generations to
go from Ardi to Homo.

I don't think the cost of substitution is the only thing slowing down the emergence of species.
You will probably come up with a few other speed bumps. However, I also don't think the
cost of replacement is a constant independent of environment. I have provided examples where
the cost of replacement is quite low.

The cost of replacement is nonzero only because of competition between organisms. The 'subtractive' part of the replacement probably takes place in mass extinctions. There could be
dozens of clines before a mass extinction and hundreds of species after a mass extinction.

You haven't acknowledged what I said. I suspect that you don't understand it. I have given
a few examples of clines where allele distributions vary. To show you understand, explain to me
why 'the cost of replacement' prevents more than one allele from taking over at a time.

> For evolution to occur, 'old' genes must be replaced by 'new', more advanced genes. This replacement has to occur in the entire population of a species if it is to evolve into another species.

That is not true under most conditions. The alleles can take over in subpopulations, causing
more than one species to emerge at a time. There is no reason why the allele has to take over
the entire population. Local variations in the environment breaks up the population into subpopulations.

Haldanes Dilemma hypothesizes with no rational that the allele has to take over the entire
population. However, most theories of species emergence refer to alleles taking over subpopulations.
Sometime a subpopulation is referred to as a 'peripheral isolate'.

>
> > I am sure that I questioned those probabilities. I question the number of de nova mutation needed to make the human species. I questioned the value of the cost of substitution being constant. I questioned most numbers in that paper. You never refuted my doubts about the numbers. I asked you where these numbers came from several times.
> > Your claim that I never questioned the numbers is very close to a lie. You know that I questioned the numbers. Yet you glibly say that I never questioned them.

> > > Unless you can come up with different calculations,you need to stop arguing against Haldane's Dilemma.

I just did, again. I just pointed out that several alleles could concentrate in separate habitats over
300 generations. There could be a thousand genes required to form a new species. A thousand alleles could be replacing their competitors over the same 300 generations. Therefore, the minimum possible time it takes to form a new species is 300 generations.

At 20 years per generation, the time it would take to form a new species is about 6000 years.
How Biblical! However, this implies that Adam belonged in the genus, Ardipithecus.
>
This is a minimum amount of time, of course. I have adapted an extreme hypothesis in opposition to Haldanes extreme model. In actual fact, there will be some competition between alleles even in a cline.
However, the competition in a cline is extremely reduced.

> >
> > That isn't true. You argue against Haldanes Dilemma without doing any calculations. You haven't checked the calculations. You can't even do the calculations. You don't know anything about statistics. You have frequently quoted probabilities that you can't support. I, on the other hand, often provide numbers.
> > You frequently dismiss the value of statistics. How can you insist that Haldanes calculation is correct? Especially since you don't understand statistics?
>
> You are grasping at straws here.
>
> I don't find Haldane's dilemma to be that complicated.

Because you haven't thought about it carefully. I don't find anything complicated because you
don't question anything.

>
> It takes 300 generations for a nucleotide to completely replace and old one. (30÷10%)

And it may take 300 generations for two new nucleotides to replace two old nucleotides.
It may take 300 generations for three new nucleotides to replace three old nucleotides.
It may take 300 generations for four new nucleotides to replace four old nucleotides.

You won't address my calculations. You won't even rebut what I just said. You will simply change the subject.

>
> How many nucleotides could be replaced in the 10 million years generously offered by Haldane? 1667
>
> (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs x 300 generations)

=150,000,000 nucleotides.

The ape genome contain about 30,000 genes an about 10,000 nucleotides per gene.
So that is 30,000,000 nucleotides. If you replace 15,000,000 of them, you have replaced
about 50% of the genome. That is enough to define a new phylum, let alone species!

Wow, that is even more nucleotides than I thought possible! Macroevolution must even be
faster than I thought! A population could go from carrot to human in 10 million years!


Your arithmetic is wrong. Completely. However, you won't even acknowledge this. Your ego is too involved in showing your infallibility. Your arrogance will not let you admit that you can't do simple
mathematics. I predict that you will try to change the subject.

You could check your own arithmetic. Or have a fourth grader do it. By the arithmetic that
you set up, there would be 15,000,000 nucleotides being replaced in a 10 MY interval. This
is clearly wrong.

Your units were wrong, for one thing. There are 20 years/generation, and
300 generations/nucleotide.

This is your error, not mine. You didn't read the units right. Your units are messed up.
ReMine would have gotten this correct. He would have realized that the 300 generations has
to be in the denominator. Under the conditions where only one allele can take over at a time,
which I don't believe, the number of nucleotides would be:

10,000,000 years/(20years/generation times 300 generations/nucleotide)=
1,667 nucleotides.

Have a chemistry major show you why the units are correct in the above calculation.

Now that looks like both Haldanes and ReMines value. So you can see I can reproduce their
numbers. That is more than you could do.

However, I think ReMine is making a big mistake in interpretation. 1,667 nucleotides
is an estimate showing how many nucleotides would be replaced assuming that no two
nucleotides were spreading at the same time. I think this is incorrect.

Reader, you now see that Jope can't do mathematics. He can't even reproduce the same calculation of the Creationist he is quoting. He apparently does not understand the underlying concepts, either.
This is more than an arithmetic mistake. If he understood at all, he would have gotten the units correct.

Yeah, I understand this math. You obviously don't. Given only one nucleotide spreading
during a 300 year time period, there would be 1,667 nucleotides replaced. That is where the
cost of replacement comes in. One needs a sizable cost of replacement to prevent more than
one nucleotide spreading at the same time.


Oh, please. You can't even do the statistics necessary to lie! You just quoted from authority.
You didn't even try to do the arithmetic.

>
>
>
> At this rate of replacement, it would take 500 billion years for just 1% of the genes to be replaced. One percent change is not enough to produce any significant speciation.

Well, according to your calculations, there are 15,000,000 nucleotides replaced. If the human
genome were 30,000,000 nucleotides, then one has replaced about 50% of them.

>
> Unless you can offer new calculations,I kindly suggest that you leave Haldane's Dilemma alone.

Until you learn mathematics, I suggest that you leave ReMine alone.

>
> And you shouldn't be and angry at me,if the theory of evolution is so replete with flaws,some of them fatal.

I am not angry at you. That arithmetic blunder made me very happy! You always make me happy!

[Darwin123]

On Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:20:26 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> How many nucleotides could be replaced in the 10 million years generously offered by Haldane? 1667
>
> (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs x 300 generations)

=150,000,000 generations

That is certainly a lot of nucleotides.

Wait, something is wrong with the units! You were trying to calculate 'nucleotides', not
'generations'!

You delivered another falsehood. You claim to have done the calculations. However, you never really did them. You didn't expect anyone to check your arithmetic, did you?

You didn't really check Haldanes or ReMines mathematics. You don't understand Haldanes
Dilemma any more than ReMine did.

Anyway, other scientists have looked at Haldanes Dilemma. They have established that
the conditions for this Dilemma are not broadly applicable. ReMines assumptions are
incorrect.
You gave a purely mathematical argument against evolution. However, you can not understand math. I showed in another post that you don't know enough mathematics even to repeat the calculations.

You are not a mathematician. Here is an article by a mathematician showing why Haldanes Dilemma is not generally viable.

http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~phurd/cruft/57.pdf
'This paper demonstrates that multicomponent hard selection (hard selection performed sequentially in n independent fitness components of the genome) is incompatible with observed substitution rates. It also shows that multicomponent rank selection permits enough differential viability to account for arbitrarily rapid evolution. This removes a major objection to the acceptance of 'rank' or 'soft' selection as a resolution of 'Haldane's dilemma' and provides firm grounds for rejecting Kimura's genetic load argument for the neutral theory.'

Note that this mathematician rejects Kimura's genetic load argument, too.

Here is yet another link on a resolution to Haldanes Dilemma.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2458906?uid=3739584&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103914014271
A solution to Haldane's dilemma (the cost to the population of natural selection) is provided by general adaptations and other changes that increase the mean population fitness. This permits rapid adaptive genetic change under some circumstances. A simple quantitative model of the genetic load due to heterosis is presented, and it is concluded that nonadditive interlocus interaction is the most probable means for preventing this load from being excessive.


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1618/1667.full.pdf
'This is in accordance with Haldane's dilemma (Haldane 1957), an issue more familiar in recent years in the context of molecular evolution, and, in principle, also relevant to morphological evolution if evolution simultaneously affects a very large number of traits, as argued here (Williams 1992; Barton & Partridge 2000; Kemp 2007). Selectively neutral, or even slightly deleterious, variants of particular traits can be fixed if they are sufficiently well integrated within what are nevertheless the overall fittest phenotypes.'


This is something another Weber said a about 7 years ago. This isn't a scientific article. This is basically what I have been telling you. Please note that I did not merely repeat what this fellow said. I figured out on my own. It isn't that complicated.

I also want to point out that the resolution to Haldanes Dilemma was known before ReMine 'discovered' Haldanes Dilemma. ReMine neve

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070804155930AAUIVr8
'Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears'

The following informal essay summarizes some of the objections that I have to ReMine. If you can't address these fundamental objections, then the mathematics used by ReMine don't mean anything at all.

http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2007/04/walter-remine-egomaniac.html
'ReMine's central thesis regarding Haldane's dilemma is that, if Haldane's model is directly applied to human evolution (there are several good reasons why it should not be, but ReMine refuses to acknowledge this), there has not been enough time to explain human evolution from an apelike ancestor because Haldane's model only 'allows' for 1,667 beneficial mutations to become fixed in a population in the given timeframe (Haldane's model does not deal with non-beneficial mutations).

Hmmmm....

1. ReMine never provides any actual evidence that even if this number has merit, that it cannot account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor -which he cannot identify, which brings up:

2. Without knowing exactly what the human-ape ancestor was, one cannot possibly know which human traits have to be explained by beneficial mutations

3. ReMine never provides any documentation or even any rationale for how many beneficial mutations are required to produce any particular trait - or even if any particular trait has to be accounted for solely by beneficial mutations.'



I predict that you will not rebut any of these objections to ReMine. You are using ReMine as an authority. You blindly quote ReMine with no idea of what he or Haldane said. You haven't examined Haldanes Dilemma in any logical way.

[Jope]

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 5:56:25 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> The following article came was written by a Creationist. It is interesting that despite this bias against evolution, the author presents good arguments why 'Haldanes Dilemma' does not apply to actual environments. As stated by this Creationist author, real scientists have replaced the hypotheses basic to Haldanes Dilemma has been replaced by the hypotheses of Punctuated Equilibrium.
>
>
>
> http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldanes_view.htm
>
>
>
> 'First note the context of my book. My book argues that in each instance, evolutionary theory (large-scale evolution) is either false, or unfalsifiable -- and either way it is not scientific, by the same criteria that evolutionists used in all their court cases.
>
> However, as claimed by Stephen Jay Gould and other paleontologists, fossil species strongly exhibit stasis (or lack of change) for their entire duration, and therefore most evolutionary change must have occurred in sudden rapid bursts at speciation events (or the splitting of a lineage, known as cladogenesis), and this would mean each ancestor species can overlap in time with numerous daughter species. In other words, Haldane underestimated the number of 'species' in each lineage. (Say, by a factor of a thousand?) These matters remain unresolved even today, but they were thoroughly obscure in Haldane 1957. Once again, Haldane's focus on 'species' provided ambiguity that overwhelmed his discussion.
>
> Footnote #5
>
> Haldane's discussion used the average duration (or "mean life") of a species. Musgrave mistakenly referred to that as the "average rate of speciation". Those are different things. The two are connected (and reciprocal) only if Musgrave was using Classical Darwinism (and anagenesis) as his model, which favors evolutionists here by under-estimating the number of 'species' required. That model is no longer in favor. It has been substantially replaced by punctuated equilibrium and an emphasis on cladogenesis, as explained above.'
>
>
>
>
>
> Note that the author dismisses Punctuated Equilibrium out of hand based on his own bias. However, the author avoids one mistake made by Jope.
>
>
>
> Jope thinks that Punctuated Equilibrium has the only purpose of explaining gaps in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory also has the purpose of fitting reality a bit better. The fundamental hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium is that the environment is extremely heterogenous. New species form slowly in what is called peripheral habitats. The fundamental hypothesis in Haldanes Dilemma is that the environment is homogeneous over the entire habitat of the population.
>
>
>
> The author inadvertently makes the point that Haldanes Dilemma explains why anagenesis is so rare. Most of evolution occurs by cladogenesis.
>
>
>
> 'Evolutionists' like Gould readily admit that anagenesis is extremely rare in nature. Most of the time organisms in a species or variety 'branch out' into multiple species.
>
>
>
> As a physicist, I tend to analyze processes in terms of physical symmetries and selection rules. So I don't think Haldanes Dilemma shouldn't be seen as a paradox. I think of Haldanes Dilemma as a selection rule. In habitats that are homogeneous (a type of symmetry), species don't get replaced by other species (selection rule). The important caveat is that homogeneous habitats are extremely rare. Most habitats are highly heterogenous.
>
>
>
> I thank Jope for bringing up the topic. I looked into it and did my own research. I now understand Haldanes Dilemma much better than I did before.

[Jope]

Your argument does not make sense.The cost of substitution assigns a constant to the amount of individual organisms needed to produce a beneficial substitution. The cost of susbtitution represents the number of deaths needed before a 'good' change happens in the DNA and becomes common in the overall gene pool.
It does not change with population size or the environment.
Reproductive capacity does not vary significantly in an inhomogeneous environment,neither can you have concurrent evolutions, ,as you seem to be implying.
Haldane used Mendel genetics in order to come up with his numbers. You are trying to pull numbers out of a hat. You have to have a rationale for your figures. You may like them;but that does mean that they are valid.

>
>
>
> I don't think the cost of substitution is the only thing slowing down the emergence of species.
>
> You will probably come up with a few other speed bumps. However, I also don't think the
>
> cost of replacement is a constant independent of environment. I have provided examples where
>
> the cost of replacement is quite low.
>
>
>
> The cost of replacement is nonzero only because of competition between organisms. The 'subtractive' part of the replacement probably takes place in mass extinctions. There could be
>

> dozens of clines before a mass extinction and hundreds of species after a mass extinction.Nonzero? You are way out there. There is always a cost. According to Haldane's calaculation, the cost cannot be paid within evolutionary time scale.
Haldane generously offered 10 million years.Apes are said to have evolved into humans in 5 million years.

>
>
>
> You haven't acknowledged what I said. I suspect that you don't understand it. I have given
>
> a few examples of clines where allele distributions vary. To show you understand, explain to me
>
> why 'the cost of replacement' prevents more than one allele from taking over at a time.

You want to discuss Ring species and Larus gulls. Haldane's dilemma really pertains to mammalian reproduction rate,which is very slow.
Therefore,I fail to see the relevance.

>
>
>
> > For evolution to occur, 'old' genes must be replaced by 'new', more advanced genes. This replacement has to occur in the entire population of a species if it is to evolve into another species.
>
>
>
> That is not true under most conditions. The alleles can take over in subpopulations, causing
>
> more than one species to emerge at a time. There is no reason why the allele has to take over
>
> the entire population. Local variations in the environment breaks up the population into subpopulations.

That is an additional aspect of macro evolution. The phylogenetic tree portrays straight line substitutions from amphibian to man.
Only those are relevant.

>
>
>
> Haldanes Dilemma hypothesizes with no rational that the allele has to take over the entire
>
> population. However, most theories of species emergence refer to alleles taking over subpopulations.

Othewise ,you do not have a substitution.

>
> Sometime a subpopulation is referred to as a 'peripheral isolate'.

That is besides the point.

>
> >
>
> > > I am sure that I questioned those probabilities. I question the number of de nova mutation needed to make the human species. I questioned the value of the cost of substitution being constant. I questioned most numbers in that paper. You never refuted my doubts about the numbers. I asked you where these numbers came from several times.

You question ,I question, so what? You need to produce a valid argument.
Haldane used mendelian genetics, in order to come up with his numbers. You can always research his line of reasoning and argue from there.

>
> > > Your claim that I never questioned the numbers is very close to a lie. You know that I questioned the numbers. Yet you glibly say that I never questioned them.
>
>
>
> > > > Unless you can come up with different calculations,you need to stop arguing against Haldane's Dilemma.
>
>
>
> I just did, again. I just pointed out that several alleles could concentrate in separate habitats over
>
> 300 generations. There could be a thousand genes required to form a new species. A thousand alleles could be replacing their competitors over the same 300 generations. Therefore, the minimum possible time it takes to form a new species is 300 generations.
>
>
>
> At 20 years per generation, the time it would take to form a new species is about 6000 years.
>
> How Biblical! However, this implies that Adam belonged in the genus, Ardipithecus.

You are pulling numbers out of a hat. The Bible is not too keen on magicians.

>
> >
>
> This is a minimum amount of time, of course. I have adapted an extreme hypothesis in opposition to Haldanes extreme model. In actual fact, there will be some competition between alleles even in a cline.
>
> However, the competition in a cline is extremely reduced.
>
> > >
>
> > > That isn't true. You argue against Haldanes Dilemma without doing any calculations. You haven't checked the calculations. You can't even do the calculations. You don't know anything about statistics. You have frequently quoted probabilities that you can't support. I, on the other hand, often provide numbers.
>
> > > You frequently dismiss the value of statistics. How can you insist that Haldanes calculation is correct? Especially since you don't understand statistics?
>
> >
>
> > You are grasping at straws here.
>
> >
>
> > I don't find Haldane's dilemma to be that complicated.
>
>
>
> Because you haven't thought about it carefully. I don't find anything complicated because you
>
> don't question anything.
>
> >
>
> > It takes 300 generations for a nucleotide to completely replace and old one. (30÷10%)
>
> And it may take 300 generations for two new nucleotides to replace two old nucleotides.
>
> It may take 300 generations for three new nucleotides to replace three old nucleotides.
>
> It may take 300 generations for four new nucleotides to replace four old nucleotides.
>
>
>
> You won't address my calculations. You won't even rebut what I just said. You will simply change the subject.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > How many nucleotides could be replaced in the 10 million years generously offered by Haldane? 1667
>
> >
>
> > (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs x 300 generations)
>
> =150,000,000 nucleotides.

I clearly meant to write (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs /300 generations)

> 10,000,000yrs÷20yrs=50000/300=1666.666 rounded up to 1667.00
Since I was specifically talking about the number 1667,that should be self evident.

>
>
> The ape genome contain about 30,000 genes an about 10,000 nucleotides per gene.
>
> So that is 30,000,000 nucleotides. If you replace 15,000,000 of them, you have replaced
>
> about 50% of the genome. That is enough to define a new phylum, let alone species!
>
>
>
> Wow, that is even more nucleotides than I thought possible! Macroevolution must even be
>
> faster than I thought! A population could go from carrot to human in 10 million years!
>
>
>
>
>
> Your arithmetic is wrong. Completely. However, you won't even acknowledge this. Your ego is too involved in showing your infallibility. Your arrogance will not let you admit that you can't do simple
>
> mathematics. I predict that you will try to change the subject.

The way you are feasting on a misprint, reeks of desperation.
May be I should throw you a bone like that ,once in a while.

>
>
>
> You could check your own arithmetic. Or have a fourth grader do it. By the arithmetic that
>
> you set up, there would be 15,000,000 nucleotides being replaced in a 10 MY interval. This
>
> is clearly wrong.
>
>
>
> Your units were wrong, for one thing. There are 20 years/generation, and
>
> 300 generations/nucleotide.
>
>
>
> This is your error, not mine. You didn't read the units right. Your units are messed up.
>
> ReMine would have gotten this correct. He would have realized that the 300 generations has
>
> to be in the denominator. Under the conditions where only one allele can take over at a time,
>
> which I don't believe, the number of nucleotides would be:
>
>
>
> 10,000,000 years/(20years/generation times 300 generations/nucleotide)=
>
> 1,667 nucleotides.
>
>
>
> Have a chemistry major show you why the units are correct in the above calculation.
>
>
>
> Now that looks like both Haldanes and ReMines value. So you can see I can reproduce their
>
> numbers. That is more than you could do.
>
>
>
> However, I think ReMine is making a big mistake in interpretation. 1,667 nucleotides
>
> is an estimate showing how many nucleotides would be replaced assuming that no two
>
> nucleotides were spreading at the same time. I think this is incorrect.
>
>
>
> Reader, you now see that Jope can't do mathematics. He can't even reproduce the same calculation of the Creationist he is quoting. He apparently does not understand the underlying concepts, either.
>
> This is more than an arithmetic mistake. If he understood at all, he would have gotten the units correct.
>
>
>
> Yeah, I understand this math. You obviously don't. Given only one nucleotide spreading
>
> during a 300 year time period, there would be 1,667 nucleotides replaced. That is where the
>
> cost of replacement comes in. One needs a sizable cost of replacement to prevent more than
>
> one nucleotide spreading at the same time.

300 generations is the allotted time for the new nucleotide to become fixated."Spreading" is inaccurate.
The Cost of Substitution is the ratio of survivors with new traits to those with the old trait that are unfit and die
It is 30:1
Only 0.00002% of the apes genetic material would be replaced in 10 million years .1,667 nucleotides is 0.00002%, if the apes had the typical amount of genetic material.

>
>
>
>
> Oh, please. You can't even do the statistics necessary to lie! You just quoted from authority.
>
> You didn't even try to do the arithmetic.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > At this rate of replacement, it would take 500 billion years for just 1% of the genes to be replaced. One percent change is not enough to produce any significant speciation.
>
>
>
> Well, according to your calculations, there are 15,000,000 nucleotides replaced. If the human
>
> genome were 30,000,000 nucleotides, then one has replaced about 50% of them.
>
> >
>
> > Unless you can offer new calculations,I kindly suggest that you leave Haldane's Dilemma alone.
>
>
>
> Until you learn mathematics, I suggest that you leave ReMine alone.
>
> >
>
> > And you shouldn't be and angry at me,if the theory of evolution is so replete with flaws,some of them fatal.
>
>
>
> I am not angry at you. That arithmetic blunder made me very happy! You always make me happy!

Like I said ,I need to throw a bone once in a while.I want you to be happy. All you have come up with thus far, are inhomogeneous environments and cline species.That can only bring sadness.
You would be a lot happier though,if you stop putting you trust on shaky theories .
"He has created the Orion and the Pleiades,his name is the Eternal."

[Jope]

By posting so many archived links,you have basically thrown the kitchen sink.
Let me try to reply in kind:
"So far I have only encountered one attack against Haldane's Dilemma that offers any kind of sophistication, one posted on the internet by Robert Williams. It regularly shows up early in search engines when searching on "Haldane's Dilemma", so evolutionists often cite it or copy from it.

There are many, many problems with Robert Williams' article. When I first read it, I became very suspicious that he had never read ReMine's book since ReMine deals with most of Williams' arguments in his book. I contacted Mr. ReMine, and he confirmed that Williams eventually admitted on the newsgroup sci.bio.evolution to not having read the book. On several occasions I attempted to contact Williams about this, but he did not reply. It is very unfortunate that Williams refuses to do the right thing and properly review ReMine's book before posting a rebuttal.

Nevertheless, since so many evolutionists refer to Williams' tenuous paper, I thought I would address its arguments. Robert Williams' comments appear in italic green.

ReMine neglects the fact that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Therefor we have actually had two different branches each evolving independently, thus allowing for twice as many gene substitutions (3300 vs. 1700) as ReMine has allowed, even if all of the above is true.

His insinuation that ReMine believes humans evolved from chimpanzees is completely unsubstantiated (this was the first sign he had not read ReMine's book). This is a very common ploy of evolutionists, to claim that creationists don't understand that evolutionary theory posits common decent from a shared ancestor. Regardless, this does not double the amount of substitutions that can occur from point A (man/ape ancestor) to point B (man), and this is the context of ReMine's (and Haldane's) argument.

ReMine assumes that all the differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to selection.

Remine makes no such assumption in his book.

This can't possibly be the case because many of the differences are known to occur at the 3rd triplet of gene codons and thus usually do not change the amino acid coded and can't affect fitness. Furthermore, since 95% of the genome is not transcribed (although that does not mean it is all non-functional ), most point mutations will not affect fitness. This reduces the number of selected substitutions by 5 x 2/3 % or from 4.8 x 107 substitutions to 1.6 x 106. Please remember that changes in the genome due to drift and other "random" processes do not add to the cost of substitution. I should add that Haldane's Dilemma has been viewed by scientists as possible evidence for the importance of Neutral Evolution as proposed by Kimura in 1967.

At this point I was very certain Williams had not read ReMine's book, since ReMine has an entire chapter dedicated to Neutral Evolution and its inability to solve Haldane's Dilemma. If Williams had read ReMines' book, or even just thought about the problem logically, he would have discovered that neutral substitutions also must be substituted in! If a neutral trait (or substitution) becomes fixed, all alternative alleles at the same locus must still be removed.

In fact, neutral mutations incur a greater cost, since they will have a greater propensity to drift back and forth in frequency since they have no selective value. Every time the frequency goes down, it negates any previous payment made by reproductive excess to get it to that frequency; when it drifts back up, a new payment via excess reproduction is needed, hence net cost is increased. According to ReMine, Haldane showed that cost is minimized only when fixation moves steadily upward3.

ReMine neglects the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes. Thus, when there are any favorable genes on the same chromosome, their substitution cost would only have to be paid one time for the chromosome as a whole, not one time for each favorable gene. This alone could falsify ReMine's whole argument if many genes are approaching fixation on a few chromosomes.

Again, ReMine's book correctly addresses this. If Williams had read it he would have been reminded of Mendelian genetics, recombination and crossover, and that humans reproduce sexually, not asexually. Diploid offspring do not inherit completely intact chromosomes from their parents. Does Williams submit that Haldane, a distinguished evolutionist, also "neglected the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes"?

ReMine ignores the possibility of gene hitchhiking - the concept that even though some mutations are neutral, they will be carried to fixation because they are physically close to a gene that is beneficial.

ReMine does not ignore this possibility, he discusses it in the book Williams pretended to read4. ReMine also cites Haldane as addressing this possibility and that Haldane also dismissed it as very negligible5.

For linkage to pay the cost of two for the price of one, the following must occur:

a) The neutral mutation must occur about the same time as the beneficial mutation it is linked to. If it occurs say 50% into the fixation cycle of the beneficial mutation, it can't just magically appear on all the other chromosomes in the population. It has to begin its own payment cycle when it first appears. All those without the mutation, which would be the entire population plus all descendants without the mutation, must eventually be removed.

b) the two would have to remain very tightly coupled through at least half the fixation process to give the neutral mutation an even chance to reach fixation6.

c) gene hitchhiking is very rarely found in sexually reproducing populations7.

I hope it is now quite apparent why linkage effects have negligible impact on cost evaluations.

Finally, ReMine ignores the fact that due to non-point mutations (deletions and insertions due to non-equal crossing over), a single mutation can affect many more than one DNA base pair. In fact, what has to be by far and away the most common mutation is the change in DNA due to the alignment mismatch mutations in mini-satellites. These mutations can affect some multiple of between 5 and 15 base pairs and have been observed in as many as 1 in 6 human sperm!

This is a completely bogus argument for several reasons. First, the must common mutations are point mutations (base pair substitutions)8. Second, even when multiple mutations occur, the harmful ones will incur an immediate reproductive cost, and any remaining neutral or "beneficial" ones must still pay their own cost if they are to reach fixation!!! Also, it appears Williams again forgot that humans reproduce sexually, not asexually. If multiple mutations occur, they will be divided among the offspring, and only so many of these will reproduce on to the next generation. Hence only a handful will remain, only to face the same shredding machine the next generation. Because sex continually scrambles genes every generation, population geneticist Ronald Fisher (1930) estimated that a "beneficial" mutation will have at best only a 1 in 50 chance of ever reaching fixation in a population 9.

Haldane assumed that the cost of substitution had to be paid on top of the "natural" death rate! In other words, it didn't matter that 90% of a mammal's offspring died without reproducing - any death that resulted from the substitution of one gene for another had to be additional death that the animal would not "normally" have suffered. This is known as hard selection and we can now easily see why Haldane only allowed an excess fertility of 10% to go towards the cost of substitution. However, most Biologists today consider all or some selection to occur as soft selection. In this scenario, the cost of substitution is "paid" in the natural death rate of the animal. That is, a disproportionate number of the individuals that die without reproducing in any generation are the ones that have lower fitness due to their genes. The Biologist Bruce Wallace has been the champion of soft selection, and you can learn more about this topic in his book "Fifty Years of Genetic Load - An Odyssey".

Let me bring in another Williams to refute Williams! Highly regarded evolutionist George C. Williams wrote the following regarding Wallace and soft selection:

"...the problem [of Haldane's dilemma] was never solved, by Wallace [soft selection] or anyone else. It merely faded away, because people got interested in other things. They must have assumed that the true resolution lay somewhere in the welter of suggestions made by one or more of the distinguished population geneticists who had participated in the discussion." 10

As we can see, Robert Williams' last effort to soften the blow of Haldane's Dilemma is disputed by an evolutionist of considerably more standing.
Conclusion

Despite various attempts by evolutionists over the last 40 years to soften the impact of Haldane's Dilemma, it still remains an enormous problem for their theory. It is worth noting that Haldane's analysis even used very favorable assumptions for the evolutionary theory, such as assuming the mutations are dominant (recessive mutations pay an exponentially higher cost). Regardless, the numbers do not bode well for the evolutionists, and is very likely why the problem stays buried in back-room discussions and does not see the light of day in evolutionary textbooks.

Current molecular data is making matters even worse for the evolutionist faithful, because it makes the problem easier to see for the layman. I document this in my article Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates. This article stands on its own and does not rely on the validity of Haldane's calculations. Using a conservative estimate of mutation rates based on current studies, it shows that the ape/human line would have required at least 40 offspring per mating pair just to maintain equilibrium! This forcefully argues that the Monkey-Man shared ancestor hypothesis is simply implausible."
http://evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm

[Darwin123]

On Monday, June 30, 2014 12:23:49 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> By posting so many archived links,you have basically thrown the kitchen sink.

I made six citations. I consider the first three quite sophisticated. The last three
were less sophisticated. Basically, the last three were me 'throwing in the
kitchen sink'.

You totally ignored your arithmetic mistake that I caught. This supports my thesis that
you CAN'T admit to mistakes.

>
> Let me try to reply in kind:
>
> "So far I have only encountered one attack against Haldane's Dilemma that offers any kind of sophistication, one posted on the internet by Robert Williams. It regularly shows up early in search engines when searching on "Haldane's Dilemma", so evolutionists often cite it or copy from it.

The first article was written by a mathematician. I placed him first because you give
lip service to the importance of numbers. However, you assume without checking that
the mathematician is 'unsophisticated'.

I start to conjecture that you have some sort of mathematics aphasia. >

>
>
> There are many, many problems with Robert Williams' article. When I first read it, I became very suspicious that he had never read ReMine's book since ReMine deals with most of Williams' arguments in his book. I contacted Mr. ReMine, and he confirmed that Williams eventually admitted on the newsgroup sci.bio.evolution to not having read the book. On several occasions I attempted to contact Williams about this, but he did not reply. It is very unfortunate that Williams refuses to do the right thing and properly review ReMine's book before posting a rebuttal.

Williams was on the bottom of my list of citations precisely because he was so emotional. Perhaps I
shouldn't have listed him at all. I only listed him since you have a severe problem with mathematics.
William replaces mathematical arguments with insults. You (Jope) appear to understand insults more than mathematics. So I predicted that you would respect Walter more than the others.

You had at least two sophisticated rebuttals in my list of citations. You won't read a single insult in
the first two papers. Naturally, you dismiss them.

>
>
>
> Nevertheless, since so many evolutionists refer to Williams' tenuous paper, I thought I would address its arguments. Robert Williams' comments appear in italic green.

Thank you for telling me about Williams. I will avoid him in the future.

>
>
> ReMine neglects the fact that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Therefor we have actually had two different branches each evolving independently, thus allowing for twice as many gene substitutions (3300 vs. 1700) as ReMine has allowed, even if all of the above is true.
>
>
>
> His insinuation that ReMine believes humans evolved from chimpanzees is completely unsubstantiated (this was the first sign he had not read ReMine's book). This is a very common ploy of evolutionists, to claim that creationists don't understand that evolutionary theory posits common decent from a shared ancestor. Regardless, this does not double the amount of substitutions that can occur from point A (man/ape ancestor) to point B (man), and this is the context of ReMine's (and Haldane's) argument.

However, Williams main point is that more than one species was evolving at the same time due
to inhomogeneities in the environment. You somehow missed that point. You focused on the silliest
part of Williams paper.

Not that this particular objection has anything to do with Haldanes Dilemma. It really doesn't matter
whether Homo evolved from Ardi or Pan. If humans did evolve from a chimpanzee-like animal, Haldanes Dilemma would still be wrong.

Williams only significant point was the one you skipped. More than one species of primate
evolved in two different habitats. The habitats were connected in the sense that genes could flow
through them. So the different alleles didn't have to compete with each other.



When I say that you haven't rebutted my position, this is what I mean. You focused on the insults.
You don't read articles that don't have insults.

>
>
>
> ReMine assumes that all the differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to selection.

Okay, but there are different types of selection. Sometimes the selection is delayed. For example,
a recessive gene isn't selected the exact generation that has the de nova mutation. A recessive gene
is neutral the first generation. So it will probably spread a bit with no selection but with 'cost of replacement'. When an allele finds itself in a habitat where it does have an advantage, it can thrive.

You do know what recessive genes are, I hope.

>
> Remine makes no such assumption in his book.

You read his book?

I admit that I haven't read his book. I just read a couple of essays by ReMine.
However, you are implicitly claiming that you read his book.

>
>
>
> This can't possibly be the case because many of the differences are known to occur at the 3rd triplet of gene codons and thus usually do not change the amino acid coded and can't affect fitness. Furthermore, since 95% of the genome is not transcribed (although that does not mean it is all non-functional ), most point mutations will not affect fitness. This reduces the number of selected substitutions by 5 x 2/3 % or from 4.8 x 107 substitutions to 1.6 x 106. Please remember that changes in the genome due to drift and other "random" processes do not add to the cost of substitution. I should add that Haldane's Dilemma has been viewed by scientists as possible evidence for the importance of Neutral Evolution as proposed by Kimura in 1967.

Kimura didn't provide the only refutal of Haldanes Dilemma. The very first article that I cited
rebutted both Haldanes Dilemma and Kimura's rebuttal. You skipped that first article because
it had MATHEMATICS.

You really don't like mathematics very much. The problem is that you think others are the same
as you.

>
>
>
> At this point I was very certain Williams had not read ReMine's book, since ReMine has an entire chapter dedicated to Neutral Evolution and its inability to solve Haldane's Dilemma. If Williams had read ReMines' book, or even just thought about the problem logically, he would have discovered that neutral substitutions also must be substituted in! If a neutral trait (or substitution) becomes fixed, all alternative alleles at the same locus must still be removed.

You are changing the topic. I listed Williams at the very end of my list. You seem to like Creationist
polemic. So I thought you might appreciate some evolutionist polemic.

I listed Williams because I thought it would make you happy. I was so happy when you brought up
ReMine. I thought that I would return the favor.

>
>
>
> In fact, neutral mutations incur a greater cost, since they will have a greater propensity to drift back and forth in frequency since they have no selective value. Every time the frequency goes down, it negates any previous payment made by reproductive excess to get it to that frequency; when it drifts back up, a new payment via excess reproduction is needed, hence net cost is increased. According to ReMine, Haldane showed that cost is minimized only when fixation moves steadily upward3.
>

Again, you are assuming that the environment is homogeneous. In an homogeneous environment, the gene continues to be neutral no matter where it is. In an inhomogeneous environment, the gene can switch from a neutral to a beneficial gene. If the animal an animal
moves into a new territory, the gene can change from neutral.

The genetic drift description only applies to habitats where the gene is neutral. The gene will die out in habitats where it becomes harmful, and thrive in habitats where it is beneficial. It will continue to
drift in environments where it is neutral. This was not included in Haldanes original dilemma.

>
>
> ReMine neglects the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes. Thus, when there are any favorable genes on the same chromosome, their substitution cost would only have to be paid one time for the chromosome as a whole, not one time for each favorable gene. This alone could falsify ReMine's whole argument if many genes are approaching fixation on a few chromosomes.
>
>
>
> Again, ReMine's book correctly addresses this. If Williams had read it he would have been reminded of Mendelian genetics, recombination and crossover, and that humans reproduce sexually, not asexually. Diploid offspring do not inherit completely intact chromosomes from their parents. Does Williams submit that Haldane, a distinguished evolutionist, also "neglected the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes"?

I don't think you read ReMines book. You are making all these claims about a book you haven't read.

The ReMine articles that I read look stupid. I am not inclined to read the book. If you find
anything intelligent in the book that is not included in his articles, let me know. But first read the
book.

>
>
>
> ReMine ignores the possibility of gene hitchhiking - the concept that even though some mutations are neutral, they will be carried to fixation because they are physically close to a gene that is beneficial.
>

I predict you will ignore your own arithmetic mistake. I also predict you will never read ReMines book.

[Darwin123]

On Monday, June 30, 2014 12:23:49 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> There are many, many problems with Robert Williams' article. When I first read it, I became very suspicious that he had never read ReMine's book since ReMine deals with most of Williams' arguments in his book. I contacted Mr. ReMine, and he confirmed that Williams eventually admitted on the newsgroup sci.bio.evolution to not having read the book. On several occasions I attempted to contact Williams about this, but he did not reply. It is very unfortunate that Williams refuses to do the right thing and properly review ReMine's book before posting a rebuttal.

Since you seem to have a direct connection to ReMine, you should tell him whether you read the book.

Maybe Robert Williams didn't read 'The Biotic Message'. Maybe he just read one of many ReMine
essays where ReMine defended his book. That is what I did. There errors in ReMines essay. Williams had a right to judge ReMine on the claims he made in his essays.

I conjecture that you didn't read 'The Biotic Message' either. If I am wrong, then please tell us. I will apologize if you literally say that you read ReMine's book. Up to now, you have been merely criticizing others. I suspect that you didn't read anything by ReMine. You probably have been responding to what other Creationists have wrote about ReMine. I at least have read an essay by ReMine. I remembering citing a ReMine essay not too long ago. Evidently, you don't remember.

I notice that you seldom read a scientific article completely. You sometimes claim to read an entire article, but you seldom do. You are accusing Williams of a sloppy habit that you do all the time.

>
>
>
> Nevertheless, since so many evolutionists refer to Williams' tenuous paper, I thought I would address its arguments. Robert Williams' comments appear in italic green.
>

Color doesn't come out in these posts. Or at least my editor doesn't show color.

I once called directly ReMine an idiot. You objected. So I decided never to directly call him an idiot again. However, I have no problem with citing other people who call him an idiot. I came to that conclusion on my own. However, it is nice to know that other people made that call before I did !-)

>
>
> ReMine neglects the fact that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Therefor we have actually had two different branches each evolving independently, thus allowing for twice as many gene substitutions (3300 vs. 1700) as ReMine has allowed, even if all of the above is true.
>
>
>
> His insinuation that ReMine believes humans evolved from chimpanzees is completely unsubstantiated (this was the first sign he had not read ReMine's book).

Have you read ReMines book? Have you read anything directly by ReMine? Unless you read ReMines book, don't criticize others for not reading it.

>This is a very common ploy of evolutionists, to claim that creationists don't understand that evolutionary theory posits common decent from a shared ancestor. Regardless, this does not double the amount of substitutions that can occur from point A (man/ape ancestor) to point B (man), and this is the context of ReMine's (and Haldane's) argument.
>

You are mistaking chemistry for competition. There is no law in chemistry that a nucleotide substitution has to come with a 'cost'. The 'cost of nucleotide substitution' comes from the competition between individuals in the population. Therefore, there is no 'cost of substitution' that is independent of the environment.

The claim that the cost of substitution doesn't depend on environment shows that you don't understand what Haldane said. There is no way outside of competition that such a cost be held constant. Did you think the cost was determined by divine intervention?

>
>
> In fact, neutral mutations incur a greater cost, since they will have a greater propensity to drift back and forth in frequency since they have no selective value.

Not all neutral mutations stay neutral. Some of them become beneficial when the organism goes to certain habitats. That is the point of including 'genetic drift'.

Every time the frequency goes down, it negates any previous payment made by reproductive excess to get it to that frequency; when it drifts back up, a new payment via excess reproduction is needed, hence net cost is increased. According to ReMine, Haldane showed that cost is minimized only when fixation moves steadily upward3.
>
>
>
> ReMine neglects the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes. Thus, when there are any favorable genes on the same chromosome, their substitution cost would only have to be paid one time for the chromosome as a whole, not one time for each favorable gene. This alone could falsify ReMine's whole argument if many genes are approaching fixation on a few chromosomes.

Yes, it sure would falsify ReMines argument! Have you any evidence that this isn't the case?

>
>
>
> Again, ReMine's book correctly addresses this. If Williams had read it he would have been reminded of Mendelian genetics, recombination and crossover, and that humans reproduce sexually, not asexually. Diploid offspring do not inherit completely intact chromosomes from their parents. Does Williams submit that Haldane, a distinguished evolutionist, also "neglected the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes"?

Neither ReMine or you know about symmetric cross over. Chromosomes often swap segments with each other. So no gene is really stuck on one chromosome for all time.

Genes that are very close to each other on the chromosome are highly correlated. That is why there is a theory of 'correlated selection'. The value of a set of such genes comes out to an average of the value of the separate genes. However, eventually genes do get swapped in a correlated set. So selection does act on the order of the genes. Which explains why some genes that have a synergistic value end up being close to each other on the chromosome.

>
>
>
> ReMine ignores the possibility of gene hitchhiking - the concept that even though some mutations are neutral, they will be carried to fixation because they are physically close to a gene that is beneficial.

You can use Mendelian genetics in the long run even in correlated sets of genes. The reason is that there is symmetric cross over between genes.

Is ReMine really so ignorant that he doesn't know about symmetric cross over?
I haven't found any mention of symmetric cross over in the essay that I read. Maybe he mentions
it in his book. You can tell us since you read the book. Didn't you ?-)

>
>
>
> ReMine does not ignore this possibility, he discusses it in the book Williams pretended to read4. ReMine also cites Haldane as addressing this possibility and that Haldane also dismissed it as very negligible5.

If it is negligible, this means that we don't have to worry about genes being stuck on a chromosome. So genes that spread at the same time in different organisms can eventually be
brought together. It may be temporary, but it is going to keep happening. Then natural selection will tend to bring those genes closer together.

>
> Finally, ReMine ignores the fact that due to non-point mutations (deletions and insertions due to non-equal crossing over), a single mutation can affect many more than one DNA base pair. In fact, what has to be by far and away the most common mutation is the change in DNA due to the alignment mismatch mutations in mini-satellites. These mutations can affect some multiple of between 5 and 15 base pairs and have been observed in as many as 1 in 6 human sperm!

Was this one of Williams quotes rather than your own?
Sorry my editor doesn't show green. This looks like an argument against ReMine. It couldn't be
yours, could it?
>
>
>
You aren't addressing my point. You keep talking about the 'cost of substitution' like it was a law in chemistry. It isn't.

Your mathematics mistake makes me think that you don't really understand Haldanes logic. I suspect
ReMine doesn't, either. To be sure, I would have to read his book. His essay looks so stupid that I am reluctant to start reading the book.

Observation: You seem to value threats and insults over mathematics. Maybe that is why you like the Bible. It is full of intimidation and insults. It has very little argumentation.

I conjecture that the only thing you find 'compelling' is intimidation and accusation. You don't have any respect for computation or observation. I conjecture that you respect ReMine because he makes more accusations than calculations.

[jope]

A couple of the links that you offered are direct ad hominem attacks
against Remine.
The author wrote
"He(Remine) has made something of a cottage industry for himself,
playing the martyr and victim of the oppressive anti-creation cabal of academia by first trying to publish an amateurish paper on the subject in a legitimate scientific journal (which was rejected for its unoriginality and its non-academic style - oppression I tells ya!) , declaring that apparently only he - the great Walter ReMine, understands Haldane's dilemma, and now by claiming that evolutionists are "suppressing" information on the subject."
Just another diatribe by a frustrated evolutionist. I am quite familiar with that style.
First of all I wrote :

"I clearly meant to write (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs /300 generations

10,000,000yrs÷20yrs=50000/300=1666.666 rounded up to 1667.00
Since I was specifically talking about the number 1667,that should be self evident. "

Why won't you accept my explanation? Am I not entitled to a typo like everyone else?

Second : let me try to simplify the discussion a bit.
Let supposed that your fantasy has merit and that man evolved from
Ardipithecus ramidus:
1- Ardipithecus ramidus is no more.
2- He was replaced by homo sapiens,the product of several beneficial
mutations.
In order for such replacement to have occured,the mortality rate of that hominid ,must have been greater than that homo sapiens ,at some point.
You mentioned competition.Competition for what? Ressources?
Of course not . Competition did not play a role in that susbtitution. The environment alone was the decisive factor. And whether or not the environment was inhomogeneous,did not matter either.
In the end the most fitted Homo sapiens survived and the less fitted
Ardipithecus ramidus disappeared.
The question now is : How long did it take for Homo sapiens to
completely replace Ardipithecus ramidus? 4.5 mil?
Here comes Haldane:
A major factor limiting the rate of substitution is the reproduction rate of the species. For a human-like creature with a generation time of about 20 years and low reproduction rate per individual, the rate of growth in numbers of a mutation in a population will be exceedingly slow. This is basically the 'cost of substitution'.
Imagine a population of 100,000 hominids, Suppose that a male and a
female both received a mutation so beneficial that they out-survived
everyone else; all the rest of the population died out--all 99,998 of them.
And then the surviving pair had enough offspring to replenish the
population in one generation. And this repeated every generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed 4.5 mil .That would mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population (i.e., 10,000,000/20).
Even with this completely unrealistic scenario, which maximizes evolutionary progress, only about 0.02% of the human genome could be generated. Considering that the difference between the DNA of a human and a chimp, our supposed closest living relative, is greater than 5%,2 evolution has an obvious problem in explaining the origin of the genetic information in a creature such as a human.

Haldane calculated that no more than 1,667 beneficial substitutions could have occurred in the supposed 10 million years since the last common ancestor of apes and humans. This is a mere one substitution per 300 generations, on average. The origin of all that makes us uniquely human has to be explained within this limit.

A substitution is a single mutational event; it can be a gene duplication or a single nucleotide substitution. The vast majority of substitutions are single nucleotides, so Haldane's limit
puts a severe constraint on what is possible with evolution, because
1,667 single nucleotide substitutions amounts to less than one average-sized gene.
Furthermore, if we accept that the vast majority of a species' existence is spent in stasis, then the problem becomes even more acute: if 90% of the supposed 10 million years is spent in stasis, then that reduces the number to 167 substitutions.
And it does not help at all ,to mention viruses or cline species.
The focus here, is strictly on Ape to Man substitution.
4.5 millions years are simply not enough time for Ardipithecus ramidus to be completely replaced by humans.

[Darwin123]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
> First of all I wrote :

Where did you write this? This is the first time you eve admitted to a typo. You
previously admitted to an error only once. Later, you took it back.

>
> "I clearly meant to write (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs /300 generations

I refute the notion that you 'clearly meant' to write the symbols in that order.
An alternate hypothesis is that you never did the calculations or checked it in
any way. Given your chronic abuse of numerical quantities, this hypothesis, one
hypothesis appeared as likely as the other.

However, I accept your current explanation that it was a typo. You just admitted to
a minor mistake. I applaud your admission until you take the admission back.

>
> 10,000,000yrs÷20yrs=50000/300=1666.666 rounded up to 1667.00
>
> Since I was specifically talking about the number 1667,that should be self evident. "

I refute the notion that it was 'self evident'. It would be 'self evident' only if I
could be sure that you actually did the calculation. I still don't know that you did the
calculation before writing it down.

The quantity, 1667 nucleotides, was stated by both ReMine and Haldane. This number was mentioned several times. It appeared as though you were restating it by rote. I had asked in
other threads why you were sure it was 1667 nucleotides. You never tried to explain it. You
wouldn't explain what hypotheses were necessary to get that number. You just kept on repeating
it like it was some kind of universal constant.

This was the first time I had ever seen you do a numerical calculation. And it was wrong! You
could not have possibly gotten the quantity '1667 nucleotides' by the arithmetic operations that
you presented.

You didn't just write down what your expression equaled. You demanded that I do the calculation!
This is the type of ploy I would expect from someone who can't do arithmetic. If you couldn't do arithmetic but wanted people to think you did, then you would have to pretend that you did the
calculation. Since you memorized the number 1667, you knew the answer.

This looked a lot like a phony gambit that I have observed in other people. It looked like you couldn't do arithmetic, and that you assumed that I couldn't do arithmetic. You figured if wrote the expression down, I would be too embarrassed to say that I couldn't do the arithmetic. Thus, you leave the other readers with the impression that the calculation had been found correct by both of us.

Now I know this isn't true. My hypothesis was hypothesized.

>
> Why won't you accept my explanation? Am I not entitled to a typo like everyone else?

You are entitled to typos when you admit they are typos. Now that you admitted it was a typo, I accept your explanation.

One question, though. Did you really do the calculation before I flagged the 'typo'?

>
>
>
> Second : let me try to simplify the discussion a bit.

Oh, no! This is the signal! You are going to drop more lies!

I never accepted your 'simplifications'. You always insert a falsehood when you
simplify things. To be fair, you never accept my 'simplifications'.

>
> Let supposed that your fantasy has merit and that man evolved from
>
> Ardipithecus ramidus:
>
> 1- Ardipithecus ramidus is no more.

Most probably. However, there is nothing in the 'theory of evolution' that
forbids the continued existence of an animal very similar to Ardipithecus.

I don't believe in Big Foot. I conjecture those programs like 'finding Big Foot' are scams.
However, I have no more evidence that 'Big foot' is a scam than I do for that 'exorcism'
of your being a scam.

Maybe 'Bigfoot' is an animal indistinguishable from Ardipithecus. Maybe Big Foot is a true 'living fossil'. Maybe BigFoot is Ardithpicus!

People are certain that they have heard and seen Big Foot. This is their 'experience'. They hear and see certain things. I suspect that some of them are telling the truth as they 'experienced' it. I just disagree with their interpretation.

>
> 2- He was replaced by homo sapiens,the product of several beneficial
> mutations.

I don't accept this 'simplification' as realistic.

I don't think Ardi was totally replaced by Ardipithecus when the ancestors of Homo became a
new species. You are assuming a global replacement of Ardi, not Homo. The immediate
replacement was local, not global. I think the consensus is that Ardi was replaced by Pan in
some jungle, and by Homo on some river bank. Some Ardi look alike could have persisted
for thousands of years on a river bank.

Ardi is supposed to be the ancestor of both human and chimpanzee. So supposedly, Homo
could not have globally replaced Ardi. Pan could not have globally replaced Ardi. Everyone else is
presupposing an inhomogeenous environment.

> In order for such replacement to have occured,the mortality rate of that hominid ,must have been greater than that homo sapiens ,at some point.
>

> You mentioned competition.Competition for what? Resources?
According to Haldanes Dilemma, it could be any type of competition. The competition
is what makes the 'cost of replacement'. It

>
> Of course not . Competition did not play a role in that susbtitution. The environment alone was the decisive factor. And whether or not the environment was inhomogeneous,did not matter either.

Horse feathers!

>
> In the end the most fitted Homo sapiens survived and the less fitted
> Ardipithecus ramidus disappeared.

I will comment on the rest after you have addressed my statements so far. The
rest of your argument is garbage because your initial hypotheses are unrealistic.

[Darwin123]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:

Here is part of the problem. You use words differently from scientists and 90% of the unscientific population.

> Ardipithecus ramidus:
>
> 1- Ardipithecus ramidus is no more.

I agree. Ardipithecus is probably extinct. Only a small fraction of them left descendants. I don't claim to know how it happened.

Yes, Ardipithecus is extinct. The extinction of Ardipithecus took place in a relatively short time. The extinction tok place on a time scale that could extend between days and millions of years. Ardipithecus could have gone extinct in a time as short as a day.

There used to be thousands of Ardipithecus alive. These all had skeletons that could be easily
identified as Ardipithecus. Only a few Ardipithecus left descendants alive today. MOST Ardipithecus died without leaving descendants that are alive today. None of the living descendants closely resemble the original Ardipithecus.

>
> 2- He was replaced by homo sapiens,the product of several beneficial mutations.

Here I disagree with you. Ardipithecus was not replaced by either Homo or Pan. Replaced would mean that there was a one for one substitution for every Ardipithecus at every point of time.

The emergence of Homo from Ardi would have taken a very long time. Probably millions of years.

The extinction of Ardipithecus had to happen thousands to millions of years after Homo emerged from Ardipithecus. The emergence of Homo did not take place during the extinction of Ardi.

You seem to think that the extinction of Ardi and the emergence of Homo occurred simultaneously. I don't think this is likely. I know that most scientists don't believe that is the case.

I believe that Homo emerged in a habitat that most Ardipithecus avoided. I believe that Ardipithecus persisted in a broad area that Homo wasn't comfortable in. They didn't live in the same locality.

You don't acknowledge that any scientist believes this. You keep on repeating that same incorrect idea, 'humans replaced the most recent common ancestor of chimps and human.'

I don't think Ardipithecus ever lived in a jungle. Ardi didn't spend a large amount of time on tree tops. He didn't have the right feet for living full time in a tree. Chimpanzees live in a jungle full time, most of the time in trees. Therefore, chimpanzees can't be said to replace Ardipithecus since Ardipithecus could not have lived in the jungle.

Ardipithecus probably didn't live full time on a river bank. There are humans that live full time in a river. So humans can not be said to have replaced Ardipithecus on the savannah.

Ardipithecus, Homo and Pan could have been living right next to each other for millions of years in different habitats. Ardipithecus, living in its own habitat, could have been wiped out for reasons having little to do with either Pan or Homo. The climate could have changed in Ardi Land.

So Ardi wasn't replaced, per se. He left a few descendants in some relatively sheltered environment. Then Ardi died out.

Children don't replace their parents. Children are born, and adults die. The two can live simultaneously for a long time. It used to be that children would find their own place. That doesn't mean the parents died. A parent can be alive while their children get a new apartment.

I don't believe that Homo globally 'replaced' all Ardi. I agree that Ardi eventually went extinct. I believe that a some Ardi left descendants who we now call Homo.

So I won't accept that humans 'replaced' their nonhuman ancestors. Most nonhuman cousins went died. Most nonhuman species that preceded humans went extinct. However, one species doesn't 'replace' the other.

I predict that you won't acknowledge what I just said. You will repeat some nonsense about 'replacement' without explaining what you mean by replacement. You will keep saying that homogeneity doesn't matter without explaining why it doesn't matter. I predict that you will from now on avoid numerical calculation whatsoever.

You will never tell us whether you really read "The Biotic Message' by ReMine. You will keep regaling Williams for refusing to read 'The Biotic Message'.

[jope]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 7:21:51 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
>
>
> Here is part of the problem. You use words differently from scientists and 90% of the unscientific population.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ardipithecus ramidus:
>
> >
>
> > 1- Ardipithecus ramidus is no more.
>
>
>
> I agree. Ardipithecus is probably extinct. Only a small fraction of them left descendants. I don't claim to know how it happened.
>
>
>
> Yes, Ardipithecus is extinct. The extinction of Ardipithecus took place in a relatively short time. The extinction tok place on a time scale that could extend between days and millions of years. Ardipithecus could have gone extinct in a time as short as a day.
>
>
>
> There used to be thousands of Ardipithecus alive. These all had skeletons that could be easily
>
> identified as Ardipithecus. Only a few Ardipithecus left descendants alive today. MOST Ardipithecus died without leaving descendants that are alive today. None of the living descendants closely resemble the original Ardipithecus.

Let's not get carried away here. Ardipithecus ramidus was
'constructed' from skeletal fragments that probably belonged to
an ape.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > 2- He was replaced by homo sapiens,the product of several beneficial mutations.
>
>
>
> Here I disagree with you. Ardipithecus was not replaced by either Homo or Pan. Replaced would mean that there was a one for one substitution for every Ardipithecus at every point of time.
>
>
>
> The emergence of Homo from Ardi would have taken a very long time. Probably millions of years.

I did mention 4.5 million years.

>
>
>
> The extinction of Ardipithecus had to happen thousands to millions of years after Homo emerged from Ardipithecus. The emergence of Homo did not take place during the extinction of Ardi.
>
>
>
> You seem to think that the extinction of Ardi and the emergence of Homo occurred simultaneously. I don't think this is likely. I know that most scientists don't believe that is the case.
>
>
>
> I believe that Homo emerged in a habitat that most Ardipithecus avoided. I believe that Ardipithecus persisted in a broad area that Homo wasn't comfortable in. They didn't live in the same locality.
>
>
>
> You don't acknowledge that any scientist believes this. You keep on repeating that same incorrect idea, 'humans replaced the most recent common ancestor of chimps and human.'

If there was no substitution ,then the susbtitution cost does not
apply.

>
>
>
> I don't think Ardipithecus ever lived in a jungle. Ardi didn't spend a large amount of time on tree tops. He didn't have the right feet for living full time in a tree. Chimpanzees live in a jungle full time, most of the time in trees. Therefore, chimpanzees can't be said to replace Ardipithecus since Ardipithecus could not have lived in the jungle.
>
>
>
> Ardipithecus probably didn't live full time on a river bank. There are humans that live full time in a river. So humans can not be said to have replaced Ardipithecus on the savannah.
>
>
>
> Ardipithecus, Homo and Pan could have been living right next to each other for millions of years in different habitats. Ardipithecus, living in its own habitat, could have been wiped out for reasons having little to do with either Pan or Homo. The climate could have changed in Ardi Land.
>
>
>
> So Ardi wasn't replaced, per se. He left a few descendants in some relatively sheltered environment. Then Ardi died out.
>
>
>
> Children don't replace their parents. Children are born, and adults die. The two can live simultaneously for a long time. It used to be that children would find their own place. That doesn't mean the parents died. A parent can be alive while their children get a new apartment.

An interesting exemple. Children end up replacing their parents,
because the mortality rate of the parents is always greater than
the mortality rate of the children.

Now, let's say that thanks to a beneficial mutation,some parents
gave birth to a child that is resistant to most degenerative
diseases.
That child clearly has a selective advantage. Therefore, the rate
of death for those that possess the new allele ,will be less
than that of normal humans. However ,the mutants still have to die and be replaced by new generations. And that process takes a while.
More than ten million years,per Haldane's calculations.
The theory of evolution faces two problems here:

1- A selective advantage does not mean survival of the
fittest,unless the environment is posing an existential threat.
The the theory of evolution is really based on the survival of the fittest and the substitution by the fittest. No way around it.

2- According to Haldane's dilemma, it would take 300
generations for the new allele( The one that gives resistance to degenerative diseases) to become fixated or to become a
normal feature of human beings.
You have asked me several times to provide Haldane's calculations.
Haldane was a mathematician .And he used Mendelian genetics
to arrive at his figures.
If you want the precise calculations ,you will have to look into it
yourself.
The following is a sample of the the type argument that I have
to deal with:
"A Poisson distribution with a mean of 80 is essentially normal,
so I shall assume a normal distribution with a standard deviation
of 8. The mean number of mutations in individuals in the selected
group deviates from the population mean by x = zsigma /p,
where z is the ordinate at the truncation point, sigma is the
standard deviation, and p is the proportion saved (ref. 46, p.
192). Thus, the mean number of mutations per individual in the
selected group is 80 - (0.1755)(8)/0.9 = 80 - 1.56 = 78.44.
Similarly, the mean number per individual in the eliminated
group is 80 + 14.1 = 94.1 "

That is actually part of an argument against Haldane
calculations. It does not make much sense alone.I am just showing a sample.
As I said before ,you need to conduct your own research and offer your own calculations. Or at the very least dispute the 300 generations figure in a rational fashion,instead of just disagreeing.
That's the only way you could refute Haldane's dilemma.

>
>
>
> I don't believe that Homo globally 'replaced' all Ardi. I agree that Ardi eventually went extinct. I believe that a some Ardi left descendants who we now call Homo.
>
>
>
> So I won't accept that humans 'replaced' their nonhuman ancestors. Most nonhuman cousins went died. Most nonhuman species that preceded humans went extinct. However, one species doesn't 'replace' the other.

A more evolved species is said to have replaced the less evolved one ,due to a selective advantage
Or a less evolved species went extent due to a phenotypic hindrance. The possibilities are endless. However,if there is no substitution ,the cost does not apply.

[August Rode]

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 02:59:18 UTC-4, jope wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 7:21:51 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
> >
> > Here is part of the problem. You use words differently from scientists and 90% of the unscientific population.
> >
> > > Ardipithecus ramidus:
> > >
> > > 1- Ardipithecus ramidus is no more.
> >
> > I agree. Ardipithecus is probably extinct. Only a small fraction of them left descendants. I don't claim to know how it happened.
> >
> > Yes, Ardipithecus is extinct. The extinction of Ardipithecus took place in a relatively short time. The extinction tok place on a time scale that could extend between days and millions of years. Ardipithecus could have gone extinct in a time as short as a day.
> >
> > There used to be thousands of Ardipithecus alive. These all had skeletons that could be easily
> > identified as Ardipithecus. Only a few Ardipithecus left descendants alive today. MOST Ardipithecus died without leaving descendants that are alive today. None of the living descendants closely resemble the original Ardipithecus.
>
> Let's not get carried away here. Ardipithecus ramidus was
> 'constructed' from skeletal fragments that probably belonged to
> an ape.

Why the scare quotes around 'constructed'? The skeletal fragments *did* belong to an ape. So what? You're an ape too.

<snip>

[Darwin123]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:09:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:

> Why the scare quotes around 'constructed'? The skeletal fragments *did* belong to an ape. So what? You're an ape too.
>
>
>
> <snip>

Well, so are you! I am, too!

You, me and Jope. The Three Monkeys!

[Darwin123]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 2:59:18 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:

> > So I won't accept that humans 'replaced' their nonhuman ancestors. Most nonhuman cousins went died. Most nonhuman species that preceded humans went extinct. However, one species doesn't 'replace' the other.
>
> A more evolved species is said to have replaced the less evolved one ,due to a selective advantage

This is just semantics. A 'more' evolved species replaces a 'less' evolved species by definition. A population of animals morphologically identical to the original species often does persist even
when a new species arises in some unchanged niche of the old environment. One could call this unchanged part of the population a 'living fossil'. A species with a different morphology emerges in some niche of the old environment.

To make your sentence correct, one can define the unchanged part of the population as a new
species. However, I think we can agree that the part of the population which is almost unchanged
should be considered the same as the old species.

>
> Or a less evolved species went extent due to a phenotypic hindrance. The possibilities are endless. However,if there is no substitution ,the cost does not apply.

Does not apply or is zero? I just said that if there is not a global substitution, the cost of replacement can be very small. This doesn't mean the cost of replacement doesn't apply. This would mean that the cost of substitution is effectively zero.

I attend monthly talks about paleontology at a local museum. Paleontologists talk about their work, I have never heard any of them use the word 'replacement' to designate one species evolving into another. They use words like 'speciation', or even 'evolving'. However, they don't claim that one species died off solely because another species evolved from them.

I have heard paleontologists use the word replacement in a different sense. They talk about one species replacing an species in a niche. This relates to the ecology of the system. The two species do not have to be closely related. They often describe one species pushing out an unrelated species while they are evolving. I haven't seen any scientist, other than Haldane, who talks about the simultaneous evolution and extinction of two species within one population.

An insect eating bat can replace an insect eating bird in a certain habitat. This does not mean that the bird evolved from the bat. This does not even mean that there were no bats in the region outside the niche. This does not mean the bat evolved from the birdbat evolved from the bird.

In the short run, this is more likely to an example of plasticity rather than evolution. It probably will evolve after it moved into the area, but this is not a 100% sure thing.

Ecological replacement facilitates evolution, but is not identical to it. I propose that when you heard the phrase 'replacement', the word probably meant ecological 'replacement'. Ecological replacement can take place due to evolution. However, it does not imply that the replaced species be descendants of the invading species.

If I am wrong, tell us! Haldane spoke about one nucleotide replacing another. That is one for you. Now tell cite a reference where one species 'replaces' another species. Was that scientist talking about replacement by descent, or ecological replacement.

[Darwin123]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:

> First of all I wrote :
>
> "I clearly meant to write (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs /300 generations
>
> 10,000,000yrs÷20yrs=50000/300=1666.666 rounded up to 1667.00
>
> Since I was specifically talking about the number 1667,that should be self evident. "
>
> Why won't you accept my explanation? Am I not entitled to a typo like everyone else?

I don't think this is a typo. It is a mistake in both logic and English grammar which is
closely analogous to what you often do.

In this example, you exchanged a multiplication sign with a division sign. When I pointed it out to you that it was a mistake, you said it was 'obvious' what you really meant. It was not obvious what you meant. The implication was that you really didn't make a mistake.

What you often in English is exchange a statement for it converse. When I point out to you it is a mistake, you say that it is really 'obvious' what you mean. You will claim that you did not make a mistake.

I have recommended that you look into this before. I think it indicates some problem.

It may be helpful for you to realize you have this cognitive difficulty. It apparently interferes with your rhetoric. You tend to base your arguments on this reversal. It may create other problems when you interpret tax forms and law.

[Jope]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:09:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:

That was uncalled for. I have never insulted you.
Ok. The skeletal fragments probably belonged to a monkey.But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.
>
>
> <snip>

[Jope]

I was created in the image of God. I have a body,a soul and a spirit.
Consider the differences between animal species. Can you honestly compare those differences with the chasm that separates man with animals?

[August Rode]

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 14:14:47 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
> > First of all I wrote :
> >
> > "I clearly meant to write (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs /300 generations
> >
> > 10,000,000yrs÷20yrs=50000/300=1666.666 rounded up to 1667.00
> >
> > Since I was specifically talking about the number 1667,that should be self evident. "
> >
> > Why won't you accept my explanation? Am I not entitled to a typo like everyone else?
>
> I don't think this is a typo. It is a mistake in both logic and English grammar which is
> closely analogous to what you often do.

The substitution of '50000' for '500000' is a typo. The rest of it is a display of Joel's lack of facility with mathematical computation.

Correcting "20 yrs" to "20 yrs/generation" and fixing the multiplication/division error doesn't help.

The result of the calculation, as specified, is a unitless number. Specifically, it is *not* a number of nucleotides. 'Nucleotides' doesn't show up as a unit anywhere in the calculation except *hocus pocus* right at the end. Real calculations don't work this way. If you want a number of nucleotides to show up in the result, they'd damn well better derivable from something in the calculation.

[Jope]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:58:42 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 2:59:18 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
>
>
> > > So I won't accept that humans 'replaced' their nonhuman ancestors. Most nonhuman cousins went died. Most nonhuman species that preceded humans went extinct. However, one species doesn't 'replace' the other.
>
> >
>
> > A more evolved species is said to have replaced the less evolved one ,due to a selective advantage
>
> This is just semantics. A 'more' evolved species replaces a 'less' evolved species by definition. A population of animals morphologically identical to the original species often does persist even
>
> when a new species arises in some unchanged niche of the old environment. One could call this unchanged part of the population a 'living fossil'. A species with a different morphology emerges in some niche of the old environment.
>
>
>
> To make your sentence correct, one can define the unchanged part of the population as a new
>
> species. However, I think we can agree that the part of the population which is almost unchanged
>
> should be considered the same as the old species.
>
> >
>
> > Or a less evolved species went extent due to a phenotypic hindrance. The possibilities are endless. However,if there is no substitution ,the cost does not apply.
>
> Does not apply or is zero? I just said that if there is not a global substitution, the cost of replacement can be very small. This doesn't mean the cost of replacement doesn't apply. This would mean that the cost of substitution is effectively zero.
>
>
>
> I attend monthly talks about paleontology at a local museum. Paleontologists talk about their work, I have never heard any of them use the word 'replacement' to designate one species evolving into another. They use words like 'speciation', or even 'evolving'. However, they don't claim that one species died off solely because another species evolved from them.

That is not what I said. One species will die slowly, due to environmental changes. As the 'old' species is progressively dying,the more adapted one is replacing it. Because the mortality rate is different between the two,the mutants will eventually replace the old species. But that process takes a while.

>
>
>
> I have heard paleontologists use the word replacement in a different sense. They talk about one species replacing an species in a niche. This relates to the ecology of the system. The two species do not have to be closely related. They often describe one species pushing out an unrelated species while they are evolving. I haven't seen any scientist, other than Haldane, who talks about the simultaneous evolution and extinction of two species within one population.

We are talking about susbtitution cost. 'Replacement' is synonymous with 'Susbtitution'. Haldane's dilemma refers to the comparative mortality rates
between two species where substitution has occured ,in particuliar how much time that substitution process required.

>
>
>
> An insect eating bat can replace an insect eating bird in a certain habitat. This does not mean that the bird evolved from the bat. This does not even mean that there were no bats in the region outside the niche. This does not mean the bat evolved from the birdbat evolved from the bird.
>
>
>
> In the short run, this is more likely to an example of plasticity rather than evolution. It probably will evolve after it moved into the area, but this is not a 100% sure thing.
>
>
>
> Ecological replacement facilitates evolution, but is not identical to it. I propose that when you heard the phrase 'replacement', the word probably meant ecological 'replacement'. Ecological replacement can take place due to evolution. However, it does not imply that the replaced species be descendants of the invading species.
>
>
>
> If I am wrong, tell us! Haldane spoke about one nucleotide replacing another. That is one for you. Now tell cite a reference where one species 'replaces' another species.

That is an essential theme of macroevolution. As the environment is having an increasingly negative impact on a living species, a new mutant arises with a more adapted and more fitted phenotype. The old will eventually go extinct and be replaced by the new .
That could be a climate change or any change that represents an existential threat. I am surprised that you even asked that question.
Goes to show that if you are sincere ,you will necessarily be a creationist.

[August Rode]

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 15:21:13 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:15:05 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:09:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> >
> > > Why the scare quotes around 'constructed'? The skeletal fragments *did* belong to an ape. So what? You're an ape too.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > Well, so are you! I am, too!
> >
> > You, me and Jope. The Three Monkeys!
>
> I was created in the image of God. I have a body,a soul and a spirit.

Your body is that of an ape, Joel. There is no getting 'round that. If you choose to believe that you have a 'soul' and a 'spirit' (if those things are even different), you're free to do so.

> Consider the differences between animal species. Can you honestly compare those differences with the chasm that separates man with animals?

Yes. Easily. Such 'chasms' exist between most species. If you don't believe me, compare a sponge to a blue whale. Compare a hummingbird to a tuna. Compare a flatworm to a T. rex. The chasm that separates humans from a sea jelly is virtually the same distance across as the chasm that separates a monitor lizard from the same sea jelly.

[Jope]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:28:12 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 14:14:47 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > First of all I wrote :
>
> > >
>
> > > "I clearly meant to write (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs /300 generations
>
> > >
>
> > > 10,000,000yrs÷20yrs=50000/300=1666.666 rounded up to 1667.00
>
> > >
>
> > > Since I was specifically talking about the number 1667,that should be self evident. "
>
> > >
>
> > > Why won't you accept my explanation? Am I not entitled to a typo like everyone else?
>
> >
>
> > I don't think this is a typo. It is a mistake in both logic and English grammar which is
>
> > closely analogous to what you often do.
>
>
>
> The substitution of '50000' for '500000' is a typo. The rest of it is a display of Joel's lack of facility with mathematical computation.

And you are right,it is indeed a typo. Darwin123 needs to believe (For the sake of his own sanity) that I am completely inept when it comes to math.
I am not an expert ,but I do know some math.As a matter of fact I happen to believe that the observable world is made of math.

>
>
>
> Correcting "20 yrs" to "20 yrs/generation" and fixing the multiplication/division error doesn't help.
>
>
>
> The result of the calculation, as specified, is a unitless number. Specifically, it is *not* a number of nucleotides. 'Nucleotides' doesn't show up as a unit anywhere in the calculation except *hocus pocus* right at the end. Real calculations don't work this way. If you want a number of nucleotides to show up in the result, they'd damn well better derivable from something in the calculation.

Length of a generation? 20 years
Status for the new trait?Higher survival rate than the old trait
New trait generation method ? Mutation
Mode of action of mutation? Alteration of one DNA nucleotide in the chromosomes.
The Cost of Substitution is the ratio of survivors with new traits to those with the old trait that are unfit and die. What is that ratio? 30:1
How long would it take for one nucleotide to completely replace an old one? 300 generations.
How many nucleotides could be replaced in the 10 million years? 1667.
Thus:
10,000,000yrs÷20yrs=500000/300generations=1667
I am using figures provided by Haldane himself.

[Jope]

Or a bacterium to a cat. I am not talking about functional differences . I am talking about the ability to use intelligence to solve a problem. That's how you assess intelligence.
A tuna has the intelligence it needs to function and thrive in its environment.So is the hummingbird.
Animals only want to eat and reproduce,whether it is a flatworm or a lion.
But man wants more than the mere physical. He wants to reach out to the stars. He is religious and wants to be like a god. Also, man has the power to destroy the planet,a power that animals do not have and cannot have.
You must at least acknowledge that man has a transcendental bent that science cannot explain.
Do you honestly believe that a mere change in gene sequences can account for the attributes of man?

[August Rode]

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 16:30:39 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:05:59 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 15:21:13 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:15:05 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:09:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why the scare quotes around 'constructed'? The skeletal fragments *did* belong to an ape. So what? You're an ape too.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Well, so are you! I am, too!
> > > >
> > > > You, me and Jope. The Three Monkeys!
> > >
> > > I was created in the image of God. I have a body,a soul and a spirit.
> >
> > Your body is that of an ape, Joel. There is no getting 'round that. If you choose to believe that you have a 'soul' and a 'spirit' (if those things are even different), you're free to do so.
> >
> > > Consider the differences between animal species. Can you honestly compare those differences with the chasm that separates man with animals?
> >
> > Yes. Easily. Such 'chasms' exist between most species. If you don't believe me, compare a sponge to a blue whale. Compare a hummingbird to a tuna. Compare a flatworm to a T. rex. The chasm that separates humans from a sea jelly is virtually the same distance across as the chasm that separates a monitor lizard from the same sea jelly.
>
> Or a bacterium to a cat. I am not talking about functional differences . I am talking about the ability to use intelligence to solve a problem. That's how you assess intelligence.

Do you understand what you just did? You've arbitrarily defined your so-called chasm based on one of the very few characteristics that differentiate us from the other animals. Well cherry-picked, Joel.

How is intelligence *not* a functional difference?

> A tuna has the intelligence it needs to function and thrive in its environment.So is the hummingbird.
> Animals only want to eat and reproduce,whether it is a flatworm or a lion.
>
> But man wants more than the mere physical. He wants to reach out to the stars.

It is unwise and incorrect to attribute desires to a species. Individuals have desires; species don't. The only people who want "more than the mere physical" are those whose basic needs are met. If you were dumped on a desert island with no tools, reaching out to the stars would be the last thing on your mind.

> He is religious and wants to be like a god.

I can't imagine anything more arrogant than such an attitude. Do you really believe this?

> Also, man has the power to destroy the planet,a power that animals do not have and cannot have.

Your point escapes me.

> You must at least acknowledge that man has a transcendental bent that science cannot explain.

What if I think that it *can* be explained?

> Do you honestly believe that a mere change in gene sequences can account for the attributes of man?

No. You'd know that if you understood what evolution is.

That humans evolved on this planet is not really up for serious discussion, Joel. The evidence is in, it's persuasive to those who aren't afraid to look at it, and it doesn't favor your beliefs.

[August Rode]

On 02/07/2014 3:18 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:09:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 02:59:18 UTC-4, jope wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 7:21:51 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here is part of the problem. You use words differently from scientists and 90% of the unscientific population.
>>>>
>>>>> Ardipithecus ramidus:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1- Ardipithecus ramidus is no more.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Ardipithecus is probably extinct. Only a small fraction of them left descendants. I don't claim to know how it happened.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Ardipithecus is extinct. The extinction of Ardipithecus took place in a relatively short time. The extinction tok place on a time scale that could extend between days and millions of years. Ardipithecus could have gone extinct in a time as short as a day.
>>>>
>>>> There used to be thousands of Ardipithecus alive. These all had skeletons that could be easily
>>>> identified as Ardipithecus. Only a few Ardipithecus left descendants alive today. MOST Ardipithecus died without leaving descendants that are alive today. None of the living descendants closely resemble the original Ardipithecus.
>>>
>>> Let's not get carried away here. Ardipithecus ramidus was
>>> 'constructed' from skeletal fragments that probably belonged to
>>> an ape.
>>
>> Why the scare quotes around 'constructed'? The skeletal fragments *did* belong to an ape. So what? You're an ape too.
>
> That was uncalled for.

Really? You don't like being reminded that you, like all other humans,
are an ape?

> I have never insulted you.

Presumably you don't see terms like "lacking intellectual honesty" and
"shallow" as insults. Your insults tend not to go a great deal deeper
than that, it's true, but you do have behaviors which are insulting.
Your tendency to attribute to me things that I have never said is not
among your more endearing charms.

> Ok. The skeletal fragments probably belonged to a monkey.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, especially given that you just
said that the fragments were from an ape? If I didn't know better, I'd
say that you're making it up as you go along.

Out of curiosity, Joel, do you actually find your own bullshit convincing?

> But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? We have many skeletons which are
virtually complete. Furthermore, some aspects of the lifestyle of the
organism tends to be reflected in its skeletal structure. The structure
of the hips says a lot about whether or not an organism is bipedal or
not, as does the location of the foramen magnum on the skull. The teeth
say a lot about the dietary requirements. Bones tell us more than you'd
like them to, Joel, and it is *not* the case that without a complete
skeleton, we know nothing at all.

[August Rode]

On 02/07/2014 3:52 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:58:42 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:

<snip>

>> Ecological replacement facilitates evolution, but is not identical to it. I propose that when you heard the phrase 'replacement', the word probably meant ecological 'replacement'. Ecological replacement can take place due to evolution. However, it does not imply that the replaced species be descendants of the invading species.
>>
>> If I am wrong, tell us! Haldane spoke about one nucleotide replacing another. That is one for you. Now tell cite a reference where one species 'replaces' another species.
> That is an essential theme of macroevolution. As the environment is having an increasingly negative impact on a living species,

Environments don't operate on species, Joel. Environments operate on
*populations*. If a species is distributed into a number of populations,
changes to the environment in which one of the populations lives won't
necessarily affect the other populations.

Until you understand this, you're going to continue making basic mistakes.

> a new mutant arises with a more adapted and more fitted phenotype. The old will eventually go extinct and be replaced by the new .
> That could be a climate change or any change that represents an existential threat. I am surprised that you even asked that question.
> Goes to show that if you are sincere ,you will necessarily be a creationist.

If being a creationist means misunderstanding everything except
creation, why is it of any value?

[August Rode]

On 02/07/2014 4:10 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:28:12 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 14:14:47 UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>>>
>>>> First of all I wrote :
>>>>
>>>> "I clearly meant to write (10,000,000yrs�20yrs /300 generations
>>>>
>>>> 10,000,000yrs�20yrs=50000/300=1666.666 rounded up to 1667.00
>>>>
>>>> Since I was specifically talking about the number 1667,that should be self evident. "
>>>>
>>>> Why won't you accept my explanation? Am I not entitled to a typo like everyone else?
>>>
>>> I don't think this is a typo. It is a mistake in both logic and English grammar which is
>>> closely analogous to what you often do.
>>
>> The substitution of '50000' for '500000' is a typo. The rest of it is a display of Joel's lack of facility with mathematical computation.
> And you are right,it is indeed a typo. Darwin123 needs to believe (For the sake of his own sanity) that I am completely inept when it comes to math.

The evidence suggests that, fairly strongly.

> I am not an expert ,but I do know some math.

The evidence says otherwise.

> As a matter of fact I happen to believe that the observable world is made of math.

Don't care what you believe.

>> Correcting "20 yrs" to "20 yrs/generation" and fixing the multiplication/division error doesn't help.
>>
>> The result of the calculation, as specified, is a unitless number. Specifically, it is *not* a number of nucleotides. 'Nucleotides' doesn't show up as a unit anywhere in the calculation except *hocus pocus* right at the end. Real calculations don't work this way. If you want a number of nucleotides to show up in the result, they'd damn well better derivable from something in the calculation.
>
> Length of a generation? 20 years
> Status for the new trait?Higher survival rate than the old trait
> New trait generation method ? Mutation
> Mode of action of mutation? Alteration of one DNA nucleotide in the chromosomes.
> The Cost of Substitution is the ratio of survivors with new traits to those with the old trait that are unfit and die. What is that ratio? 30:1
> How long would it take for one nucleotide to completely replace an old one? 300 generations.
> How many nucleotides could be replaced in the 10 million years? 1667.
> Thus:
> 10,000,000yrs�20yrs=500000/300generations=1667
> I am using figures provided by Haldane himself.

Okay, I see what's going on. You substituted '20 yrs' for '20
yrs/generation' and '300 generations' for '300 generations/nucleotide
replacement' in the calculation. I didn't think that Haldane could
possibly be as mathematically inept as you made him out to be.

[Darwin123]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:30:39 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> Do you honestly believe that a mere change in gene sequences can account for the attributes of man?

I predicted that you would try to change the topic. I also predicted that you would not try to directly refute anything that I said. Well, here it is:

If no change in gene sequence can account for the attributes of man, Haldanes Dilemma is totally irrelevant to the origin of human beings. If humanity can't be accounted for in terms of genes, then ReMines arguments against human evolution make no sense at all.

n the extreme case where there are 1667 different habitats connected by a large 'commonwealth', and if the environment is deteriorating only in the commonwealth, then maybe 1667 nucleotides could be replaced in the same 300 years. This scenario was not foreseen by Haldane.

You have not addressed the issue of inhomogeneity. Instead, you try to change the topic.

[Darwin123]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:32:14 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> The evidence suggests that, fairly strongly.

> > I am not an expert ,but I do know some math.

> The evidence says otherwise.
>
> > As a matter of fact I happen to believe that the observable world is made of math.
> Don't care what you believe.
>

Further, Jope means numerology not math. Most of mathematics does not involve
actual numerical values. Most of math involves both geometry and abstract logic.
Numerology requires weak correlations and wishful thinking.

Jope looks for numbers that correlate with his personal belief. Nothing that
he 'calculates' can be described by grammatical sentences or even pictorial
diagrams.

Some of this is lack of background in advanced math. However, he can't even list his
hypotheses in a simple calculation. 't appears to remember numbers by rote.

I can do numerology, too. If you round down the number of nucleotides in Haldanes calculation, you get the value '1666'. That is probably the number of nucleotides required for
one antiChrist. So Haldane really calculated the Number of the Beast !-)

[Jope]

I truly deplore your lack of depth. You seem to be out of your element,when dealing with non quantifiable subjects.
That is a serious deficiency.

>
>
>
> > Do you honestly believe that a mere change in gene sequences can account for the attributes of man?
>
>
>
> No. You'd know that if you understood what evolution is.
>
>
>
> That humans evolved on this planet is not really up for serious discussion, Joel. The evidence is in, it's persuasive to those who aren't afraid to look at it, and it doesn't favor your beliefs.

Sounds like an affirmation of faith.
I have been looking and looking. Thus far all I am seeing is a flawed theory that some people want to maintain at all costs.
Had the theory of evolution not become an essential weapon in a war against religion, it would have been discarded already.

[Jope]

Lucy's skeletal fragments were gathered within a fifty miles radius.
I think that's stretching it a bit.
Cranial morphology is surprisingly diverse. Most of the time,those
hominids are constructed form a piece of skull or an arm bone.
If evolution was true,we could not be having this discussion.Transitional skeletons would be all over the place.

Truth be told,Darwin predicted just that. Unfortunately,evolutionists have had no other choice but to use their own imagination in order to salvage their beloved theory.
And to quote Gould:
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould

[Jope]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:06:59 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On 02/07/2014 3:18 PM, Jope wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:09:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 02:59:18 UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 7:21:51 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
>
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:28:51 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Here is part of the problem. You use words differently from scientists and 90% of the unscientific population.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> Ardipithecus ramidus:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> 1- Ardipithecus ramidus is no more.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I agree. Ardipithecus is probably extinct. Only a small fraction of them left descendants. I don't claim to know how it happened.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Yes, Ardipithecus is extinct. The extinction of Ardipithecus took place in a relatively short time. The extinction tok place on a time scale that could extend between days and millions of years. Ardipithecus could have gone extinct in a time as short as a day.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> There used to be thousands of Ardipithecus alive. These all had skeletons that could be easily
>
> >>>> identified as Ardipithecus. Only a few Ardipithecus left descendants alive today. MOST Ardipithecus died without leaving descendants that are alive today. None of the living descendants closely resemble the original Ardipithecus.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Let's not get carried away here. Ardipithecus ramidus was
>
> >>> 'constructed' from skeletal fragments that probably belonged to
>
> >>> an ape.
>
> >>
>
> >> Why the scare quotes around 'constructed'? The skeletal fragments *did* belong to an ape. So what? You're an ape too.
>
> >
>
> > That was uncalled for.
>
>
>
> Really? You don't like being reminded that you, like all other humans,
>
> are an ape?

How would you feel ,if someone called you an animal?
There is a reason for our superiority.
We are also spiritual beings.

>
>
>
> > I have never insulted you.
>
>
>
> Presumably you don't see terms like "lacking intellectual honesty" and
>
> "shallow" as insults. Your insults tend not to go a great deal deeper
>
> than that, it's true, but you do have behaviors which are insulting.
>
> Your tendency to attribute to me things that I have never said is not
>
> among your more endearing charms.

I must confess that it is hard for me to grasp the nuances between different types of atheism.

>
>
>
> > Ok. The skeletal fragments probably belonged to a monkey.
>
>
>
> How did you arrive at that conclusion, especially given that you just
>
> said that the fragments were from an ape? If I didn't know better, I'd
>
> say that you're making it up as you go along.
>
>
>
> Out of curiosity, Joel, do you actually find your own bullshit convincing?
>
>
>
> > But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.
>
>
>
> How did you arrive at that conclusion? We have many skeletons which are
>
> virtually complete. Furthermore, some aspects of the lifestyle of the
>
> organism tends to be reflected in its skeletal structure. The structure
>
> of the hips says a lot about whether or not an organism is bipedal or
>
> not, as does the location of the foramen magnum on the skull. The teeth
>
> say a lot about the dietary requirements. Bones tell us more than you'd
>
> like them to, Joel, and it is *not* the case that without a complete

Unfortunately,evolutionists study those things with a religious like conviction.
In case you haven't noticed, no paleontologist could ever dare questioning the theory of evolution. When scientific objectivity is not possible ,the conclusions are not trustworthy.
A tell tale sign: whenever somebody says that he or she knows for a fact what happened a million years ago,you have a blind fanatic in your hand.

[Jope]

ot 20 generations .

Haldane offered 20 years as the average Length of a generation.
I only gave Haldane's calculations.
Therefore, accusing me of being inept is the same thing as accusing Haldane himself.

[Jope]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:38:24 PM UTC-4, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:30:39 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>
>
>
> > Do you honestly believe that a mere change in gene sequences can account for the attributes of man?
>
>
>
> I predicted that you would try to change the topic. I also predicted that you would not try to directly refute anything that I said. Well, here it is:
>
>
>
> If no change in gene sequence can account for the attributes of man, Haldanes Dilemma is totally irrelevant to the origin of human beings. If humanity can't be accounted for in terms of genes, then ReMines arguments against human evolution make no sense at all.

I have had several discussions about the human soul already.
In particular,I tried to provide the evidence that the mind/self is distinct from the brain.
The human soul is what differentiates us from animals. That is where our superiority over animals resides.

>
>
>
> n the extreme case where there are 1667 different habitats connected by a large 'commonwealth', and if the environment is deteriorating only in the commonwealth, then maybe 1667 nucleotides could be replaced in the same 300 years. This scenario was not foreseen by Haldane.

Actually Haldane said 300 generations. And his focus was on Ape to Man susbtitution.
But evolutionists keep looking for alternate scenarios,where Haldane 's dilemma does not apply.
You even mentioned ring species and viruses.
Haldane 's idea would be a lot clearer if you should try to focus as well on Ape to Man susbtitution.

>
>
>
> You have not addressed the issue of inhomogeneity. Instead, you try to change the topic.

I don't even have to. It is enough to invalidate one link in the chain,to invalidate the whole theory of evolution.
If you want to object,try to offer a rational explanation. Explain why you disagree with Haldane's fitness constant or why you cannot accept the 300 generations figures.
Object to this:
10,000,000÷20y=500000÷300gen=1667.
Instead of calling me mathematically inept.

[Jope]

I am currently trying to tackle Laplace's equation.I want to be able to use Poisson 's equation(I saw it being used in a discussion of Haldane's dilemma. And I was quite impressed) in conjunction with punnet square.
If I can quantify some of my ideas,I will be able to silence most evolutionists.

[Darwin123]

This conversation, right?

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg01432.html
'What makes 'you think that I am not
dedicated to figuring out how mutation and selection works?

Everything you have posted on the subject and your complete refusal to do any research into the math, try to actually discuss your bogus assumptions, or even try to listen. You come across as both profoundly arrogant and ignorant. And I don't think that is just my opinion.

Hersheyh, you are the one who doesn't do research into the equations
you use. You have used the Poisson equation incorrectly for the
mutation and selection phenomenon without ever studying the derivation
of the equation and knowing the limitations of the use of the
equation. Evolutionists always think that anyone who claims they are
wrong are arrogant and ignorant but it is not my teaching which has
led to the occurrence of multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide
resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than
durable cancer treatments.'

>
> If I can quantify some of my ideas,I will be able to silence most evolutionists.

Knock yourself out!

[August Rode]

Wow. Absolutely no interest in what I might think the explanation is. Instead, you go straight for the insult, and solely because I don't agree with your views. Remember this when you try to claim that you've never insulted me.

> > > Do you honestly believe that a mere change in gene sequences can account for the attributes of man?
> >
> > No. You'd know that if you understood what evolution is.
> >
> > That humans evolved on this planet is not really up for serious discussion, Joel. The evidence is in, it's persuasive to those who aren't afraid to look at it, and it doesn't favor your beliefs.
>
> Sounds like an affirmation of faith.

It isn't; it's an acknowledgement of the evidence. You know... the stuff that creationism is *not* based on.

> I have been looking and looking. Thus far all I am seeing is a flawed theory that some people want to maintain at all costs.

You're seeing precisely what you're "looking and looking" for. Your chief interest is in maintaining your beliefs and you're protecting them by deliberately avoiding understanding what evolution is and what it is not. You would *never* have invented the so-called "phenotypic shield" out of whole cloth if you weren't trying to *prevent* evolution from occurring.

> Had the theory of evolution not become an essential weapon in a war against religion, it would have been discarded already.

Who turned the theory of evolution into a "weapon in a war against religion," Joel? Do you need a hint? It wasn't scientists or atheists.

The theory of evolution is an explanatory framework that does a pretty good job of explaining the phenomenon of evolution. The theory will be discarded only when something that better explains the existing evidence comes along.

Creationism is *not* something better; it's something worse. Creationism doesn't explain *anything*. It offers only excuses. To take an example that we've discussed recently, the degree of similarity between the genomes of any two organisms is understood scientifically to represent the degree of relatedness between those two organisms. Creationism says that isn't so, that God chose to do it that way for reasons that we can't know, that the degree of similarity is essentially *meaningless*. Isn't that so?

[August Rode]

From your lack of response, I'll assume that you *don't* find your own bullshit convincing.

> > > But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.
> >
> > How did you arrive at that conclusion? We have many skeletons which are
> > virtually complete. Furthermore, some aspects of the lifestyle of the
> > organism tends to be reflected in its skeletal structure. The structure
> > of the hips says a lot about whether or not an organism is bipedal or
> > not, as does the location of the foramen magnum on the skull. The teeth
> > say a lot about the dietary requirements. Bones tell us more than you'd
> > like them to, Joel, and it is *not* the case that without a complete
> > skeleton, we know nothing at all.
>
> Lucy's skeletal fragments were gathered within a fifty miles radius.

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)>:

"Both Donald Johanson and Tom Gray spent two hours on the increasingly hot arid plain, surveying the dusty terrain. On a hunch on their return to their vehicle, Johanson decided to look at the bottom of a small gully that had been checked at least twice before by other workers. At first view, nothing was immediately visible, but as they turned to leave, a fossil caught Johanson's eye: an arm bone fragment lying on the slope. Near it lay a fragment from the back of a small skull. They noticed part of a femur (thigh bone) a few feet (around 1 m) away. As they explored further, they found more and more bones on the slope, including vertebrae, part of a pelvis, ribs, and pieces of jaw. They marked the spot and returned to camp, excited at finding so many pieces apparently from one individual hominid.

In the afternoon, everyone on the expedition returned to the gully, sectioning off the site and preparing for careful collection, which eventually took three weeks. That first evening they celebrated at the camp. At some stage during the evening, they nicknamed the fossil AL 288-1 as Lucy, after the Beatles' song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", which was being played loudly and repeatedly on a tape recorder in the camp.

Over the next three weeks, the team found several hundred pieces or fragments of bone, with no duplication, confirming their original speculation that the pieces were from a single skeleton. As the team analyzed the fossil further, they calculated that an amazing 40% of a hominid skeleton had been recovered. Johanson assessed it as female, based on the one complete pelvic bone and sacrum, which indicated the width of the pelvic opening."

"Within a fifty miles radius" is technically true, but obviously the entire fossil came from an area much smaller than that.

> I think that's stretching it a bit.

I agree. This "fifty mile radius" claim is obviously false and that would have been so very easy for you to verify. That you didn't bother to verify it speaks volumes about your approach to the truth, Joel. Not in a good way.

> Cranial morphology is surprisingly diverse. Most of the time,those
> hominids are constructed form a piece of skull or an arm bone.

Lucy was a 40% complete skeleton. However, we were talking about Ardipithecus. The fossil known as Ardi is *more* complete than Lucy.

You are once again trying to throw sand in my eyes.

> If evolution was true,we could not be having this discussion.Transitional skeletons would be all over the place.

Curiously, transitional skeletons have been discovered all over the place.

> Truth be told,Darwin predicted just that. Unfortunately,evolutionists have had no other choice but to use their own imagination in order to salvage their beloved theory.
>
> And to quote Gould:
>
> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
>
> The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould

You've used these quotes before. As before, you are making as little effort to understand what Gould was trying to say as you can get away with. Both quotes are true but neither is an argument against evolution. I'm sure that this has been explained to you previously so I'm not going to do so again unless you ask me to.

[August Rode]

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:44:34 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:06:59 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:

<snip>

> > > But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.
> >
> > How did you arrive at that conclusion? We have many skeletons which are
> > virtually complete. Furthermore, some aspects of the lifestyle of the
> > organism tends to be reflected in its skeletal structure. The structure
> > of the hips says a lot about whether or not an organism is bipedal or
> > not, as does the location of the foramen magnum on the skull. The teeth
> > say a lot about the dietary requirements. Bones tell us more than you'd
> > like them to, Joel, and it is *not* the case that without a complete

> > skeleton, we know nothing at all.
>

> Unfortunately,evolutionists study those things with a religious like conviction.

Is that a bad thing? If so, why?

> In case you haven't noticed, no paleontologist could ever dare questioning the theory of evolution.

You seem to think that science and religion work the same way: that there is a prevailing dogma that cannot be challenged. But science *doesn't* work that way. Anyone can challenge any theory they want *provided* that they have the facts on their side, can make sound arguments from those facts and don't ignore facts that are "inconvenient."

The reason why it's so very difficult to argue against the theory of evolution is because it's a very *good* explanation for observed phenomena.

> When scientific objectivity is not possible ,the conclusions are not trustworthy.

Absolutely correct. In the light of that, explain to me again why I should trust any of your beliefs.

> A tell tale sign: whenever somebody says that he or she knows for a fact what happened a million years ago,you have a blind fanatic in your hand.

Isn't it about time for you to accept that people who make a career out of the study of the past might actually know something more about it than you do? To call such people "blind fanatics" is beyond the pale. In regard to knowing what happened a million years ago, I'd suggest that *you* are far more a "blind fanatic" than anyone else. Your entire attitude is "I certainly don't know so no one else is allowed to know either."

[August Rode]

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:57:06 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:32:14 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:

<snip>

> > > 10,000,000yrs�20yrs=500000/300generations=1667
> > > I am using figures provided by Haldane himself.

<snip>

> Haldane offered 20 years as the average Length of a generation.
> I only gave Haldane's calculations.
> Therefore, accusing me of being inept is the same thing as accusing Haldane himself.

Are you telling me that Haldane doesn't know anything more about why units of measure are important than you? I really find that hard to believe.

I'll give you a hint about why I'm making an issue of it here. Getting the units of measure correct is a check that I use to determine whether you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. If you can't get (or be bothered to get) the units of measure correct, then you're really not doing a calculation. Personally, I think Darwin123 is right: you do numerology but think you're doing mathematics. The only person you're succeeding in fooling is yourself.

[Ralph]

ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!! The last two lines above show me that you are
nothing more than a common creationist.
No originality but a master at copying and pasting the thoughts of others.

[Jope]

No.I was talking about Leonard Nunney who holds a PHD in Biology.
He wrote: "The Cost of Natural Selection Revisited (Haldane Dilemma)"
He created a software which he claims to have produced different figures from Haldane's. But he is refusing the provide any information about that software.
" Nunney's results differ markedly from those of Haldane and ReMine. Considering Nunney's reticence to have his results critiqued and the divergence from other results, his results appear to lack credibility."
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/nunney-the-cost.html

"For many years I have publicly claimed Haldane's Dilemma is a major
unsolved problem for evolution. A problem so severe it threatens
macroevolution as a "fact" and evolutionary genetics as an empirical
science. Toward a solution, evolutionary geneticist, Leonard Nunney,
published a paper reporting his computer simulations. He claimed his
computer simulations show rates of beneficial evolution much faster
than the Haldane limit. Evolutionists now cite Nunney's computer
simulation as a refutation of my position.

Starting December 19, 2006, I sent emails to Prof. Nunney, expressing
my interest in his paper, and requesting access to his simulation
software. After several emails, across several months, I eventually
reached Professor Nunney by phone on April 5th. He acknowledged he had
received my emails, and said he had not responded because I "do not
publish in peer-reviewed journals." (his words)

I again requested his software for my examination of his published
results and methods. He declined, saying he will not share his
software with "people who do not publish in peer-reviewed
journals." (his words)

I'm sure Prof. Nunney is a fine person, but this is bad public policy.
Nunney's simulation is claimed as a solution to Haldane's Dilemma.
(Quite falsely, I would add.) And Nunney's work was done at a tax-
supported institution, (the University of California, Riverside). And
Haldane's Dilemma is part of a high profile public controversy
directly affecting our politics, and our public schools - where
evolutionists exert monopoly control. Evolutionists have an obligation
to be forthcoming on the matter. Yet they are withholding their
evidence.

Haldane's Dilemma is a scandal several decades long already - and the
scandal keeps getting worse."

-- Walter ReMine
http://SaintPaulScience.com/withholding_evidence.htm
http://SaintPaulScience.com/Haldane.htm

[Jope]

Did you verify the information that you provided ? I will be quoting from a PHD:
" Lucy is about three and one half feet tall and had a tiny brain for her size even by ape standards. In his book LUCY, THE BEGINNINGS OF HUMAN KIND, Johanson said:

"with Lucy I had no problem. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was too small. Her jaw was the wrong shape." Her teeth "pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes" and the "jaws had some of those same primitive features".

On the basis of the knee joint and pelvic bones, however, Johanson believes that Lucy did walk in an upright bipedal fashion. Thus he believes that Lucy is an ancestor of man as well as an ancestor of A. africanus. What is rarely mentioned, however, is the fact that the knee joint was found over a mile away from the skeleton and in strata 200 feet lower!

Note to reader: The 1973 knee joint is often referred to in the context of the Lucy skeleton. This knee joint, however, was found over a mile away and in strata 200 feet lower than the Lucy skeleton (1974) ---a point not always made clear by those who discuss the evidence for bipedality in Australopithecus afarensis in general, or Lucy in particular. Johanson has never claimed that the 1973 knee joint belongs to the individual skeleton known as Lucy, but _is_ convinced that the knee joint belongs to the same species as Lucy [Australopithecus afarensis] because of "anatomical similarity".
Johanson as we have seen is quite willing to incorporate other peoples fossils into his own classification. Not only did he incorporate Mary Leaky's Laetoli fossils into A. afarensis over her objection, he also claimed that A. afarensis made the remarkable human footprints she had discovered in layers of volcanic ash in Laetoli. Mary Leaky discovered a 73 foot long trail of fossilized footprints consisting of 20 prints of an individual the size and shape of a modern 10 year old human and 27 prints of a smaller person. "
http://www.bestbiblescience.org/apeimage.htm

>
>
>
> > Cranial morphology is surprisingly diverse. Most of the time,those
>
> > hominids are constructed form a piece of skull or an arm bone.
>
>
>
> Lucy was a 40% complete skeleton. However, we were talking about Ardipithecus. The fossil known as Ardi is *more* complete than Lucy.

No so. Simply not so.

>
>
> You are once again trying to throw sand in my eyes.

Evolutionists are the ones that have been doing it to you. Not me.
"In his book BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER (1970) the anatomist Sir Solly Zuckerman ranked the various fields of science in order of decreasing scientific validity. His order went; physics, chemistry, biology, social science and then he said:

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like ESP or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is some times able to believe several contradictory things at the same time".

Dr. David Pilbeam an anthropologist at Harvard seems to have come to similar conclusions. In a recent review of Richard Leakey's book ORIGINS in American Scientist (66:379 May June 1978) he said that it was "a clear statement of our current consensus view of human evolution and remarkably up to date" but he concluded with the following sobering thoughts:

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology. But introductory books - or book reviews - are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark: that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."
You are all too willing to buy anything from those snake oil salesmen, also named evolutionists .I am only trying to point you to the truth.

>
>
>
> > If evolution was true,we could not be having this discussion.Transitional skeletons would be all over the place.
>
>
>
> Curiously, transitional skeletons have been discovered all over the place.

Skeletal fragments are all over the place,not a whole fossil like the dinosaur, for instance.Homo neanderthalensis was first constructed from a mere arm bone.Do check your facts.
Let me re-phrase:
If evolution was true,whole hominids skeletons would have been found by now.

>
>
>
> > Truth be told,Darwin predicted just that. Unfortunately,evolutionists have had no other choice but to use their own imagination in order to salvage their beloved theory.
>
> >
>
> > And to quote Gould:
>
> >
>
> > "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
>
> >
>
> > The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould
>
>
>
> You've used these quotes before. As before, you are making as little effort to understand what Gould was trying to say as you can get away with. Both quotes are true but neither is an argument against evolution. I'm sure that this has been explained to you previously so I'm not going to do so again unless you ask me to.

I am asking ,with anticipation.

[Jope]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:44:35 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:44:34 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:06:59 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > > But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.
>
> > >
>
> > > How did you arrive at that conclusion? We have many skeletons which are
>
> > > virtually complete. Furthermore, some aspects of the lifestyle of the
>
> > > organism tends to be reflected in its skeletal structure. The structure
>
> > > of the hips says a lot about whether or not an organism is bipedal or
>
> > > not, as does the location of the foramen magnum on the skull. The teeth
>
> > > say a lot about the dietary requirements. Bones tell us more than you'd
>
> > > like them to, Joel, and it is *not* the case that without a complete
>
> > > skeleton, we know nothing at all.
>
> >
>
> > Unfortunately,evolutionists study those things with a religious like conviction.
>
>
>
> Is that a bad thing? If so, why?
>
>
>
> > In case you haven't noticed, no paleontologist could ever dare questioning the theory of evolution.
>
>
>
> You seem to think that science and religion work the same way: that there is a prevailing dogma that cannot be challenged. But science *doesn't* work that way. Anyone can challenge any theory they want *provided* that they have the facts on their side, can make sound arguments from those facts and don't ignore facts that are "inconvenient."

Correction:Atheists seem to think that science and religion have to work the same way.
Human beings try to find the truth by fumbling around in the dark. And what they believe today may change tomorrow.
But true religion proceeds from divine revelation. It is eternal and immutable. God does not err.

>
>
>
> The reason why it's so very difficult to argue against the theory of evolution is because it's a very *good* explanation for observed phenomena.

To you perhaps. To me it looks like an abominable patch up job.

>
>
>
> > When scientific objectivity is not possible ,the conclusions are not trustworthy.
>
>
>
> Absolutely correct. In the light of that, explain to me again why I should trust any of your beliefs.

"What is born of the flesh is flesh. What is born of the Spirit is spirit." It has to be between you and God.

>
>
>
> > A tell tale sign: whenever somebody says that he or she knows for a fact what happened a million years ago,you have a blind fanatic in your hand.
>
>
>
> Isn't it about time for you to accept that people who make a career out of the study of the past might actually know something more about it than you do? To call such people "blind fanatics" is beyond the pale. In regard to knowing what happened a million years ago, I'd suggest that *you* are far more a "blind fanatic" than anyone else. Your entire attitude is "I certainly don't know so no one else is allowed to know either."

Scientists keep getting history wrong and they keep changing their theories. A fact is something actually observed. A fact does not change.

[Jope]

What units of measure? You seem to be in another planet with this thing. Maybe you should try to google search "Haldane's dilemma" instead of going out on a limb.

[Jope]

Ralph! Ralph! Jesus is calling you to repentance.

[August Rode]

I can't see anything here that contradicts anything I said.
Consequently, I don't know why you posted any of this. Perhaps you could
explain your point.

You certainly didn't do anything to support your "50 mile radius" claim,
did you?

>>> Cranial morphology is surprisingly diverse. Most of the time,those
>>> hominids are constructed form a piece of skull or an arm bone.
>>
>> Lucy was a 40% complete skeleton. However, we were talking about Ardipithecus. The fossil known as Ardi is *more* complete than Lucy.
> No so. Simply not so.

From
<http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ara-vp-6500>:

"Nicknamed "Ardi," ARA-VP-6/500 is a 4.4 million year old female partial
skeleton. So far, she is one of the most complete early human skeletons
scientists have ever found, and only one of six known early human
partial skeletons over 1 million years old."

>> You are once again trying to throw sand in my eyes.
> Evolutionists are the ones that have been doing it to you. Not me.
> "In his book BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER (1970) the anatomist Sir Solly Zuckerman ranked the various fields of science in order of decreasing scientific validity. His order went; physics, chemistry, biology, social science and then he said:
>
> "We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like ESP or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is some times able to believe several contradictory things at the same time".
>
> Dr. David Pilbeam an anthropologist at Harvard seems to have come to similar conclusions. In a recent review of Richard Leakey's book ORIGINS in American Scientist (66:379 May June 1978) he said that it was "a clear statement of our current consensus view of human evolution and remarkably up to date" but he concluded with the following sobering thoughts:
>
> "My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology. But introductory books - or book reviews - are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark: that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

Presenting the antiquated opinions of others (1970 and 1978. Seriously?
Don't you think we've learned anything since then?) without providing
appropriate context is a certain indication that you are skating on thin
ice and you know it.

> You are all too willing to buy anything from those snake oil salesmen, also named evolutionists .

Firstly, I don't buy into ideas that I don't understand. That's why I
hold to no specific origin-of-the-universe model. When I don't
understand something, I tend to not spout off about it. You might
consider doing the same. Secondly, these "snake oil salesmen" are
required to show their "wares" before anyone buys into them. Their
evidence and their arguments *must* be submitted for critical review
before their conclusions should be accepted. Thirdly, the people who are
actually snake oil salesmen here are the religious and they do this by
promising rewards that they have absolutely *no* good reason to believe
anyone will receive. Fourthly, you're engaging in psychological
projection. The person who's bought into snake oil is *you*.

> I am only trying to point you to the truth.

No, you're not. You're trying to point me toward your beliefs. You're
not even remotely interested in the truth.

>>> If evolution was true,we could not be having this discussion.Transitional skeletons would be all over the place.

Yeah. About that...

From
<http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ara-vp-6500>:

"When discovered, Ardi�s bones were so fragile they crumbled when the
team touched them."

Bone doesn't last forever even if it's been fossilized and especially
when it's exposed to the elements.

For what it's worth, vanishingly few of the fossils that we find today
are those of extant species. Why do you think that is?

>> Curiously, transitional skeletons have been discovered all over the place.
> Skeletal fragments are all over the place,not a whole fossil like the dinosaur, for instance.Homo neanderthalensis was first constructed from a mere arm bone.Do check your facts.
> Let me re-phrase:
> If evolution was true,whole hominids skeletons would have been found by now.

Your logic looks *really* twisted. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Let me try this one out on you... If Christianity was true, whole
original manuscripts of the New Testament books would have been found by
now. When you figure out what's wrong with what I just said, you should
understand why your claim is just as silly.

By the way:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy>

>>> Truth be told,Darwin predicted just that. Unfortunately,evolutionists have had no other choice but to use their own imagination in order to salvage their beloved theory.
>>>
>>> And to quote Gould:
>>>
>>> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
>>>
>>> The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould
>>
>> You've used these quotes before. As before, you are making as little effort to understand what Gould was trying to say as you can get away with. Both quotes are true but neither is an argument against evolution. I'm sure that this has been explained to you previously so I'm not going to do so again unless you ask me to.
> I am asking ,with anticipation.

I'll do it in a new thread as soon as you've provided proper citations
for these quotes. I'm not going to do all of the heavy lifting.

[Darwin123]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 6:42:29 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> Ralph! Ralph! Jesus is calling you to repentance.

Ralph can't hear Jesus over your raving !-)

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 10:38:17 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> I am currently trying to tackle Laplace's equation.I want to be able to use Poisson 's equation(I saw it being used in a discussion of Haldane's dilemma. And I was quite impressed) in conjunction with punnet square.

This is probably another gambit. I predict that there will be no follow up.

>
> If I can quantify some of my ideas,I will be able to silence most evolutionists.

If I am wrong, then I have a sincere recommendation.

Please learn the difference between a Poisson distribution and the Poisson equation. The
Poisson distribution is a probability density that applies to independent events. The Poisson
equation is an generalization of the Laplace equation. The only thing the
two equations have in common is a French mathematical named Poisson.

The Poisson distribution is often used in numerical studies of natural selection and
genetics. The Poisson equation is seldom used in studies of evolution. It seems very much like your mathematical background is far too deficient for you to tackle either Poisson equation or Poisson distribution.

You may be among the first to apply the Poisson equation to evolution. However, I conjecture that you are conflating the Poisson distribution for the Poisson equation. If you are making this mistake, then most everybody will recognize you to be a phony. Not a very convincing phony, I might add.

[Ralph]

Jesus is dead, Jope, get used to it!

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:uvmdndBGZvBT7irO...@giganews.com...

>
> Jesus is dead, Jope, get used to it!

Was, not is.

"I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am
alive for evermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell
and of death."
Revelation 1:18

[August Rode]

On 04/07/2014 6:31 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:44:35 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:44:34 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:06:59 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.
>>>>
>>>> How did you arrive at that conclusion? We have many skeletons which are
>>>> virtually complete. Furthermore, some aspects of the lifestyle of the
>>>> organism tends to be reflected in its skeletal structure. The structure
>>>> of the hips says a lot about whether or not an organism is bipedal or
>>>> not, as does the location of the foramen magnum on the skull. The teeth
>>>> say a lot about the dietary requirements. Bones tell us more than you'd
>>>> like them to, Joel, and it is *not* the case that without a complete
>>>> skeleton, we know nothing at all.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately,evolutionists study those things with a religious like conviction.
>>
>> Is that a bad thing? If so, why?

I note that you selectively failed to address this question.

>>> In case you haven't noticed, no paleontologist could ever dare questioning the theory of evolution.
>>
>> You seem to think that science and religion work the same way: that there is a prevailing dogma that cannot be challenged. But science *doesn't* work that way. Anyone can challenge any theory they want *provided* that they have the facts on their side, can make sound arguments from those facts and don't ignore facts that are "inconvenient."
> Correction:Atheists seem to think that science and religion have to work the same way.

I think it would be beneficial if there was some rationality in religion
but I also appreciate why it isn't wanted.

> Human beings try to find the truth by fumbling around in the dark. And what they believe today may change tomorrow.

Exactly right. And as soon as you acknowledge that this applies to
*everything* that we aren't personally responsible for, you'll have made
some progress. If you think I'm wrong about that, explain to me why
science converges while religion diverges. Why are there in excess of
30,000 sects of Christianity now if there was only one sect to start with?

> But true religion proceeds from divine revelation.

How can you demonstrate to me that "divine revelation" actually comes
from anything divine rather than simply emerging from the mind of the
person who claims to have had such a revelation?

Do you accept that anyone who claims to have had a divine revelation has
*actually* had one?

> It is eternal and immutable.

I see. God *can't* change his mind. Good to know.

When Moses (assuming he actually existed) was (supposedly) in Midian,
God (assuming he exists) selected Moses to return to Egypt to free the
Israelites (assuming they were ever enslaved there, for which there is
no evidence). While Moses was on his way to Egypt, God decided to kill
Moses for reasons that aren't given. Fortunately, Zepporah (assuming she
existed) intervened and God relented, thereby allowing Moses to complete
the mission that God had originally charged him with.

Looks to me as though God *can* change his mind.

> God does not err.

Ah, good to know. So God intended that Adam and Eve should eat from the
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. After all, why else place them
near the Tree in the first place?

>> The reason why it's so very difficult to argue against the theory of evolution is because it's a very *good* explanation for observed phenomena.
> To you perhaps. To me it looks like an abominable patch up job.

You're seeing precisely what you're looking for. That you can't even
accurately explain what evolution is, regardless of whether you believe
it or not, ought to tell you something about your objectivity. Here's a
free hint for you: one *cannot* effectively argue against ideas that one
doesn't actually understand.

>>> When scientific objectivity is not possible ,the conclusions are not trustworthy.
>>
>> Absolutely correct. In the light of that, explain to me again why I should trust any of your beliefs.
> "What is born of the flesh is flesh. What is born of the Spirit is spirit." It has to be between you and God.

So you can think of no *good* reason why I should trust any of your
beliefs? That seems to be what you're saying.

>>> A tell tale sign: whenever somebody says that he or she knows for a fact what happened a million years ago,you have a blind fanatic in your hand.
>>
>> Isn't it about time for you to accept that people who make a career out of the study of the past might actually know something more about it than you do? To call such people "blind fanatics" is beyond the pale. In regard to knowing what happened a million years ago, I'd suggest that *you* are far more a "blind fanatic" than anyone else. Your entire attitude is "I certainly don't know so no one else is allowed to know either."
> Scientists keep getting history wrong and they keep changing their theories.

By "changing their theories", I assume that you know that theories
*improve* as new facts emerge. Theories are rarely entirely overthrown
in favor of something completely novel. Far more frequently, theories
are *changed* to take new facts into consideration if this can be done
without otherwise damaging the theory.

You seem to be of the opinion that theories that improve with time are a
problem. They aren't. Even *you* do this in real life with everything
except your religious beliefs.

> A fact is something actually observed. A fact does not change.

Correct. So why is it that you have none?

[August Rode]

On 04/07/2014 6:40 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:57:06 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:32:14 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> 10,000,000yrs�20yrs=500000/300generations=1667
>>>>> I am using figures provided by Haldane himself.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Haldane offered 20 years as the average Length of a generation.
>>
>>> I only gave Haldane's calculations.
>>
>>> Therefore, accusing me of being inept is the same thing as accusing Haldane himself.
>>
>> Are you telling me that Haldane doesn't know anything more about why units of measure are important than you? I really find that hard to believe.
>>
>> I'll give you a hint about why I'm making an issue of it here. Getting the units of measure correct is a check that I use to determine whether you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. If you can't get (or be bothered to get) the units of measure correct, then you're really not doing a calculation. Personally, I think Darwin123 is right: you do numerology but think you're doing mathematics. The only person you're succeeding in fooling is yourself.
>
> What units of measure?

It's as I thought. You *must* have failed any science course you ever took.

> You seem to be in another planet with this thing. Maybe you should try to google search "Haldane's dilemma" instead of going out on a limb.

I skimmed Haldane's original paper, located here:

<http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf>

I know just by looking at it that you don't stand a chance of being able
to understand the mathematics involved. I can't comment on it
meaningfully as it requires a level of understanding of biology that I
don't have. Your grasp of biology is worse than mine by a long shot, so
I know that you aren't basing your arguments on anything that Haldane wrote.

You said you used Haldane's calculations. I provided the link to
Haldane's paper. I can't find in that paper the calculation that you
present. So where you got that calculation from?

[Ralph]

If he is still alive, produce him:-))). Thanks for playin,g Andrew.

[Jope]

You might have a point,if there were not so many animal fossils that are still intact.Dino's are said to have been around some 60 mya ,yet scientists are still finding dinosaurs bones with soft tissues in them.Imagine that: 60 millions years old soft tissues.Yet they cannot find a reasonable hominid skeleton.
But you will not find such hominid bones,because they simply never existed.

>
>
>
> >> Curiously, transitional skeletons have been discovered all over the place.
>
> > Skeletal fragments are all over the place,not a whole fossil like the dinosaur, for instance.Homo neanderthalensis was first constructed from a mere arm bone.Do check your facts.
>
> > Let me re-phrase:
>
> > If evolution was true,whole hominids skeletons would have been found by now.
>
>
>
> Your logic looks *really* twisted. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>
>
>
> Let me try this one out on you... If Christianity was true, whole
>
> original manuscripts of the New Testament books would have been found by
>
> now. When you figure out what's wrong with what I just said, you should
>
> understand why your claim is just as silly.

That hardly makes sense.

>
>
>
> By the way:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy>
>
>
>
> >>> Truth be told,Darwin predicted just that. Unfortunately,evolutionists have had no other choice but to use their own imagination in order to salvage their beloved theory.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> And to quote Gould:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
>
> >>>
>
> >>> The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould
>
> >>
>
> >> You've used these quotes before. As before, you are making as little effort to understand what Gould was trying to say as you can get away with. Both quotes are true but neither is an argument against evolution. I'm sure that this has been explained to you previously so I'm not going to do so again unless you ask me to.
>
> > I am asking ,with anticipation.
>
>
>
> I'll do it in a new thread as soon as you've provided proper citations
>
> for these quotes. I'm not going to do all of the heavy lifting.

If you cannot lift,don't try to pretend. Gould 's statement is simple and straightforward. And he is not the only one who has said the very same thing.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Gould
Unless he is using a coded language;What else could that possibly mean?

[Jope]

I will accept that you have a point there.I have never pretended to an expert at math.
Here is what I am talking about:

Nunney, Leonard, "The cost of natural selection revisited"

"In a constantly changing environment, organisms must continuously adapt or face extinction. J. B. S. Haldane argued that the "cost of natural selection" (also called the cost of substitution) puts an upper limit on the rate of adaptation, and showed that the cost (C) was a decreasing function of the initial frequency of the beneficial alleles. Based on mutation-selection balance and 10% selective mortality, he suggested that the limit to adaptive evolution was about one allelic substitution per 300 generations. I have tested Haldane's results using simulations of a population limited by density-dependent regulation and subject to a constantly changing environment that affects n (= 1-7) independent survival traits, each controlled by a single locus. I investigated the influence of carrying capacity (K), mutation rate (u), number of beneficial mutations per generation (approximated by M = 2Ku) and net reproductive rate (R). Of these, M has the predominant influence. The effect of large changes in R was relatively small. The cost of selection (C) was measured as the shortest number of generations between an allelic substitution at all loci under selection that was consistent with population persistence. The results differed from Haldane's solution. Across a range of conditions, the cost of simultaneous selection at n loci was determined by the linear relationship C = C0(M) + nC1(M), where C0(M) is the intercept and C1(M) is the slope of the linear regression of C on n, for a given M. The intercept defined a positive fixed cost of substitution, that appears to reflect genetic deaths occurring during the stochastic phase when the beneficial alleles are rare. For M > 1/2, the cost of natural selection is substantially less than Haldane's estimate; however, when M < 1/2, the cost (and particularly the fixed cost) increases in an accelerating fashion as M is lowered. This result has important implications for conserved populations, since for u ~ 5 x 10-6 the carrying capacity of the population must be 50000 for M = 1/2. To avoid low M, smaller populations should be linked together into a large metapopulation whenever possible. This large unit would be capable of adapting when the isolated parts could not. It also suggests that if M << 1, small gains in K through increases in habitat can have a very large positive influence on the future survival of the population in a changing environment."
Nunney used Poisson distribution to challenge Haldane's numbers.
One thing though ,I have yet to see you own challenge.
You only mentioned inhomgeneous environments and cline species.
Those were not challenges.

[Jope]

He needs to pay attention ,before it is too late. Hell is a very noisy place.

[Jope]

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 10:07:50 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 6:31 PM, Jope wrote:
>
> > On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:44:35 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:44:34 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>
> >>> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:06:59 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> How did you arrive at that conclusion? We have many skeletons which are
>
> >>>> virtually complete. Furthermore, some aspects of the lifestyle of the
>
> >>>> organism tends to be reflected in its skeletal structure. The structure
>
> >>>> of the hips says a lot about whether or not an organism is bipedal or
>
> >>>> not, as does the location of the foramen magnum on the skull. The teeth
>
> >>>> say a lot about the dietary requirements. Bones tell us more than you'd
>
> >>>> like them to, Joel, and it is *not* the case that without a complete
>
> >>>> skeleton, we know nothing at all.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Unfortunately,evolutionists study those things with a religious like conviction.
>
> >>
>
> >> Is that a bad thing? If so, why?
>
>
>
> I note that you selectively failed to address this question.

I did answer it it .How come you missed it.
I said that a scientific religion is neither science nor religion. Evolution is has become a pseudo religion that is parasitizing the science of biology.
Students are now forced to study that monstrousity as real science.

>
>
>
> >>> In case you haven't noticed, no paleontologist could ever dare questioning the theory of evolution.
>
> >>
>
> >> You seem to think that science and religion work the same way: that there is a prevailing dogma that cannot be challenged. But science *doesn't* work that way. Anyone can challenge any theory they want *provided* that they have the facts on their side, can make sound arguments from those facts and don't ignore facts that are "inconvenient."
>
> > Correction:Atheists seem to think that science and religion have to work the same way.
>
>
>
> I think it would be beneficial if there was some rationality in religion

All the necessary rationaliy has been provided.
But God knows every single atom in the universe. How can a mere human being comprehend his rationale?
The spiritual realm must come to you. Your mind is simply too puny to go there.

>
> but I also appreciate why it isn't wanted.
>
>
>
> > Human beings try to find the truth by fumbling around in the dark. And what they believe today may change tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Exactly right. And as soon as you acknowledge that this applies to
>
> *everything* that we aren't personally responsible for, you'll have made
>
> some progress. If you think I'm wrong about that, explain to me why
>
> science converges while religion diverges. Why are there in excess of
>
> 30,000 sects of Christianity now if there was only one sect to start with?

You are dealing with a spiritual reality ,where faith is required and where the devil is allowed to deceive people.
You have a transcendental nature that will survive the death of the body.
God will bring every single person into judgement based on the secret thoughts of his heart and the choices that he made during his earthly existence.

>
>
>
> > But true religion proceeds from divine revelation.
>
>
>
> How can you demonstrate to me that "divine revelation" actually comes
>
> from anything divine rather than simply emerging from the mind of the
>
> person who claims to have had such a revelation?

"By faith we know that the world was created by the word of God." Faith is a fundamental requirement. I experience the presence of God.
But I had to belive

>
>
>
> Do you accept that anyone who claims to have had a divine revelation has
>
> *actually* had one?
>
>
>
> > It is eternal and immutable.
>
>
>
> I see. God *can't* change his mind. Good to know.
>
>
>
> When Moses (assuming he actually existed) was (supposedly) in Midian,
>
> God (assuming he exists) selected Moses to return to Egypt to free the
>
> Israelites (assuming they were ever enslaved there, for which there is
>
> no evidence). While Moses was on his way to Egypt, God decided to kill
>
> Moses for reasons that aren't given. Fortunately, Zepporah (assuming she
>
> existed) intervened and God relented, thereby allowing Moses to complete
>
> the mission that God had originally charged him with.
>
>
>
> Looks to me as though God *can* change his mind.

Of course. In the Bible God sent Jonah to announce the destruction of Niniveh. But the people repented and God changed his mind.
However God does not repent like a man does. He knows everything already.

>
>
>
> > God does not err.
>
>
>
> Ah, good to know. So God intended that Adam and Eve should eat from the
>
> Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. After all, why else place them
>
> near the Tree in the first place?

God is indeed prescient.
According the Bible Jesus Christ ,the lamb of God,was crucified ,before the creation of the world.
God has assigned every single day of your life. He knows how and when you are going die.
That's why human science will always come up short. You need humility and a child like faith,in order to be saved.
That's because your mind cannot help you with spiritual matters.
"Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18v3

>
>
>
> >> The reason why it's so very difficult to argue against the theory of evolution is because it's a very *good* explanation for observed phenomena.
>
> > To you perhaps. To me it looks like an abominable patch up job.
>
>
>
> You're seeing precisely what you're looking for. That you can't even
>
> accurately explain what evolution is, regardless of whether you believe
>
> it or not, ought to tell you something about your objectivity. Here's a
>
> free hint for you: one *cannot* effectively argue against ideas that one
>
> doesn't actually understand.

I understand that commom descent between man and animal and improved functionality,
are the basic tenets of evolution.
As far as I can see ,evolutionists have failed to substantiate those assumptions,thus far.
Now that you mention it, evolution might be something completely different. That would make a lot of sense.
In that case ,I would be glad to accept your definition and rectify my error.

>
>
>
> >>> When scientific objectivity is not possible ,the conclusions are not trustworthy.
>
> >>
>
> >> Absolutely correct. In the light of that, explain to me again why I should trust any of your beliefs.
>
> > "What is born of the flesh is flesh. What is born of the Spirit is spirit." It has to be between you and God.
>
>
>
> So you can think of no *good* reason why I should trust any of your
>
> beliefs? That seems to be what you're saying.
>
>
>
> >>> A tell tale sign: whenever somebody says that he or she knows for a fact what happened a million years ago,you have a blind fanatic in your hand.
>
> >>
>
> >> Isn't it about time for you to accept that people who make a career out of the study of the past might actually know something more about it than you do? To call such people "blind fanatics" is beyond the pale. In regard to knowing what happened a million years ago, I'd suggest that *you* are far more a "blind fanatic" than anyone else. Your entire attitude is "I certainly don't know so no one else is allowed to know either."

I cannot repeat that enough : Faith and human science are two different things : The first comes from personal efforts, the second comes from revelation and the supernatural mainfestation of God.

>
> > Scientists keep getting history wrong and they keep changing their theories.
>
>
>
> By "changing their theories", I assume that you know that theories
>
> *improve* as new facts emerge. Theories are rarely entirely overthrown
>
> in favor of something completely novel. Far more frequently, theories
>
> are *changed* to take new facts into consideration if this can be done
>
> without otherwise damaging the theory.
>
>
>
> You seem to be of the opinion that theories that improve with time are a
>
> problem. They aren't. Even *you* do this in real life with everything
>
> except your religious beliefs.

Except that the world does not run on changing theories .It runs on immutable facts.
Your little fumblings around are of very limited value.

>
>
>
> > A fact is something actually observed. A fact does not change.
>
>
>
> Correct. So why is it that you have none?

I know you don't like metaphors.But a blind man cannot see the hand of God. You need a pair of eyes.

[August Rode]

On 05/07/2014 6:06 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Friday, July 4, 2014 9:01:42 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:

<snip>

>> Firstly, I don't buy into ideas that I don't understand. That's why I
>> hold to no specific origin-of-the-universe model. When I don't
>> understand something, I tend to not spout off about it. You might
>> consider doing the same. Secondly, these "snake oil salesmen" are
>> required to show their "wares" before anyone buys into them. Their
>> evidence and their arguments *must* be submitted for critical review
>> before their conclusions should be accepted. Thirdly, the people who are
>> actually snake oil salesmen here are the religious and they do this by
>> promising rewards that they have absolutely *no* good reason to believe
>> anyone will receive. Fourthly, you're engaging in psychological
>> projection. The person who's bought into snake oil is *you*.
>>
>>> I am only trying to point you to the truth.
>>
>> No, you're not. You're trying to point me toward your beliefs. You're
>> not even remotely interested in the truth.
>>
>>>>> If evolution was true,we could not be having this discussion.Transitional skeletons would be all over the place.
>>
>> Yeah. About that...
>>
>> From
>> <http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ara-vp-6500>:
>>

>> "When discovered, Ardi's bones were so fragile they crumbled when the

>> team touched them."
>>
>> Bone doesn't last forever even if it's been fossilized and especially
>> when it's exposed to the elements.
>>
>> For what it's worth, vanishingly few of the fossils that we find today
>> are those of extant species. Why do you think that is?
>
> You might have a point,if there were not so many animal fossils that are still intact.

The animal fossils that you're referring to were mostly buried in
sedimentary material which was overlaid with yet more sedimentary
material. The sedimentary rock that formed has been largely undisturbed
since the material was deposited.

> Dino's are said to have been around some 60 mya ,yet scientists are still finding dinosaurs bones with soft tissues in them.Imagine that: 60 millions years old soft tissues.

Out of curiosity, Joel, what does the term "soft tissue" mean to you. I
get the feeling that you're using it in a way that anatomists don't use it.

> Yet they cannot find a reasonable hominid skeleton.

As far as I'm aware, virtually all of the hominid bone fragments that
have been found have been virtually on the surface of the ground. That
makes them subject to the elements. I did point that out about.

Lucy's skeleton (Australopithecus afarensis) is about 40% complete.
Given the conditions in which it was found (primarily exposed on the
surface of the ground and in the process of disintegrating), 40% is not bad.

Ardi's skeleton (Ardipithecus ramidus) is slightly more complete than
Lucy's.

"Little Foot" is a nearly complete skeleton of an australopithecine.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Foot>

"Turkana Boy" is a nearly complete skeleton of a Homo ergaster.

> But you will not find such hominid bones,because they simply never existed.

You've got a really serious case of denial there, Joel. In case you
think that we both work from the same set of facts, here's one instance
where you are actively discarding inconvenient facts simply because you
can't deal with them.

>>>> Curiously, transitional skeletons have been discovered all over the place.
>>
>>> Skeletal fragments are all over the place,not a whole fossil like the dinosaur, for instance.Homo neanderthalensis was first constructed from a mere arm bone.Do check your facts.
>>> Let me re-phrase:
>>> If evolution was true,whole hominids skeletons would have been found by now.
>>
>> Your logic looks *really* twisted. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>> Let me try this one out on you... If Christianity was true, whole
>> original manuscripts of the New Testament books would have been found by
>> now. When you figure out what's wrong with what I just said, you should
>> understand why your claim is just as silly.
> That hardly makes sense.

In fact, it makes more sense than your statement did.

Being able to find "whole hominids [sic] skeletons" isn't contingent on
whether or not evolution is true. It's contingent on looking in the
right place, it's contingent on the fossils having survived the
elements, and it's probably contingent on a bunch of other factors as
well. (By the way, that evolution occurs *is* true. If it wasn't, there
would have been no need for a theory of evolution to explain it.)

However, if the New Testament is "God-breathed", then why would God have
allowed the original manuscripts of the New Testament books to have
apparently evaporated? Why would he have allowed those books to develop
more manuscript variations than there are words in the New Testament?

>> By the way:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy>

Perhaps you'll actually look at the link this time. Perhaps you'll
continue to ignore it.

>>>>> Truth be told,Darwin predicted just that. Unfortunately,evolutionists have had no other choice but to use their own imagination in order to salvage their beloved theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> And to quote Gould:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
>>>>>
>>>>> The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould
>>>>
>>>> You've used these quotes before. As before, you are making as little effort to understand what Gould was trying to say as you can get away with. Both quotes are true but neither is an argument against evolution. I'm sure that this has been explained to you previously so I'm not going to do so again unless you ask me to.
>>> I am asking ,with anticipation.
>>
>> I'll do it in a new thread as soon as you've provided proper citations
>> for these quotes. I'm not going to do all of the heavy lifting.
> If you cannot lift,don't try to pretend.

You're being an ass. I said I wasn't going to do *all* of the heavy
lifting.

> Gould 's statement is simple and straightforward. And he is not the only one who has said the very same thing.
> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Gould
> Unless he is using a coded language;What else could that possibly mean?

You tell me. In your own words, what do you think the quote means?

[Jope]

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 10:30:11 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 6:40 PM, Jope wrote:
>
> > On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:57:06 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>
> >>> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:32:14 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>
>

> >>>>> 10,000,000yrs?20yrs=500000/300generations=1667

>
> >>>>> I am using figures provided by Haldane himself.
>
> >>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Haldane offered 20 years as the average Length of a generation.
>
> >>
>
> >>> I only gave Haldane's calculations.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Therefore, accusing me of being inept is the same thing as accusing Haldane himself.
>
> >>
>
> >> Are you telling me that Haldane doesn't know anything more about why units of measure are important than you? I really find that hard to believe.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'll give you a hint about why I'm making an issue of it here. Getting the units of measure correct is a check that I use to determine whether you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. If you can't get (or be bothered to get) the units of measure correct, then you're really not doing a calculation. Personally, I think Darwin123 is right: you do numerology but think you're doing mathematics. The only person you're succeeding in fooling is yourself.
>
> >
>
> > What units of measure?
>
>
>
> It's as I thought. You *must* have failed any science course you ever took.

Wouldn't it be simpler to answer the question?

>
>
>
> > You seem to be in another planet with this thing. Maybe you should try to google search "Haldane's dilemma" instead of going out on a limb.
>
>
>
> I skimmed Haldane's original paper, located here:
>
>
>
> <http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf>
>
>
>
> I know just by looking at it that you don't stand a chance of being able
>
> to understand the mathematics involved. I can't comment on it
>
> meaningfully as it requires a level of understanding of biology that I
>
> don't have. Your grasp of biology is worse than mine by a long shot, so
>
> I know that you aren't basing your arguments on anything that Haldane wrote.
>
>
>
> You said you used Haldane's calculations. I provided the link to
>
> Haldane's paper. I can't find in that paper the calculation that you
>
> present. So where you got that calculation from?

"There is something lacking with your searching ablity.
Let me offer you a simple link. By the way the article is pro evolution:
"Haldane claimed that in a fixed population (a population that is neither growing nor shrinking in the number of its member animals) of relatively slowly reproducing mammals, no more than 1 gene could be fixed per 300 generations due to the cost of substitution. Haldane assumed that the deaths caused by the newly disadvantageous gene's lower fitness (possibly due to a change in environment) would be over and above the "background" death rate - the naturally occurring deaths due to all reasons other than the lowered fitness of the gene. Haldane estimated that the substitution cost (for a diploid) would require the deaths of 30 times the population size for a single gene fixation from a very rare mutation to homozygous for the entire population. Since he claimed that the intensity of selection rarely exceeded 10%, Haldane believed a cost of 30 times the population size for the substitution would require 300 generations (30 / 0.1) to fix a single gene."
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane.html
If you read that simple article,you will no longer be in the dark.

[Jope]

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 10:30:11 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 6:40 PM, Jope wrote:
>
> > On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:57:06 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>
> >>> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:32:14 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> 10,000,000yrs�20yrs=500000/300generations=1667
>
> >>>>> I am using figures provided by Haldane himself.
>
> >>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Haldane offered 20 years as the average Length of a generation.
>
> >>
>
> >>> I only gave Haldane's calculations.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Therefore, accusing me of being inept is the same thing as accusing Haldane himself.
>
> >>
>
> >> Are you telling me that Haldane doesn't know anything more about why units of measure are important than you? I really find that hard to believe.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'll give you a hint about why I'm making an issue of it here. Getting the units of measure correct is a check that I use to determine whether you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. If you can't get (or be bothered to get) the units of measure correct, then you're really not doing a calculation. Personally, I think Darwin123 is right: you do numerology but think you're doing mathematics. The only person you're succeeding in fooling is yourself.
>
> >
>
> > What units of measure?
>
>
>
> It's as I thought. You *must* have failed any science course you ever took.
>
>
>
> > You seem to be in another planet with this thing. Maybe you should try to google search "Haldane's dilemma" instead of going out on a limb.
>
>
>
> I skimmed Haldane's original paper, located here:
>
>
>
> <http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf>
>
>
>
> I know just by looking at it that you don't stand a chance of being able
>
> to understand the mathematics involved. I can't comment on it
>
> meaningfully as it requires a level of understanding of biology that I
>
> don't have. Your grasp of biology is worse than mine by a long shot,

I did take biology in class. However I am blaming you for holding back your fire,instead of contributing to the discussion.
Darwin123 is having a hard time with Haldane's dilemma.With your math and biology background ,you could have at least offered your opinion.

[Darwin123]

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 6:16:24 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:

> Nunney used Poisson distribution to challenge Haldane's numbers.

I was right! You looked up Poisson equation on Google and found the
Laplace equation. You had no idea what either of ten meant.

Let me give you a hint. Both Laplaces equation and the Poisson equation
are partial differential equations. Partial differential equations are taught in
junior undergraduate mathematics courses. So to tackle either of them, you
have to get into 'advanced' math.

The Poisson distribution should have been discussed in your statistics
course. Apparently, not much of that course has stuck. It hasn't stopped you
from making false assertions about probability and statistics.

>
> One thing though ,I have yet to see you own challenge.

I challenged ReMines conclusions and Haldanes model.
>
> You only mentioned inhomogeneous environments and cline species.
These are challenges. I said that Haldane did not take into account
inhomogeneous species. I said that cline species exist although
Haldanes Dilemma implies that they should not.

>
> Those were not challenges.

Says you! These are challenges! Most readers know very well that
these were challenges!

This explains why you don't even try to rebut my challenges. You
refuse to acknowledge that they are challenges. Hints

1) Your promise to 'tackle Laplaces equation' wasn't a real challenge.
2) Your promise to find 'an actual case' study of a horned family of humans
was not a era challenge.

[August Rode]

On 05/07/2014 7:04 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 10:07:50 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> On 04/07/2014 6:31 PM, Jope wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:44:35 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:44:34 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:06:59 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> But some species of monkeys have gone extinct. All those hominids that evolutionists are referring to ,are nothing but unbridled artistic creations from sparse skeletal fragments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did you arrive at that conclusion? We have many skeletons which are
>>>>>> virtually complete. Furthermore, some aspects of the lifestyle of the
>>>>>> organism tends to be reflected in its skeletal structure. The structure
>>>>>> of the hips says a lot about whether or not an organism is bipedal or
>>>>>> not, as does the location of the foramen magnum on the skull. The teeth
>>>>>> say a lot about the dietary requirements. Bones tell us more than you'd
>>>>>> like them to, Joel, and it is *not* the case that without a complete
>>>>>> skeleton, we know nothing at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately,evolutionists study those things with a religious like conviction.
>>>>
>>>> Is that a bad thing? If so, why?
>>
>> I note that you selectively failed to address this question.
> I did answer it it .How come you missed it.

Probably because you didn't actually write anything down in response.

> I said that a scientific religion is neither science nor religion. Evolution is has become a pseudo religion that is parasitizing the science of biology.

Without evolution, biology is little more than a collection of
uncorrelated facts. Evolution correlates those facts.

> Students are now forced to study that monstrousity as real science.

It *is* real science, Joel. I'm sorry that you don't like that.

>>>>> In case you haven't noticed, no paleontologist could ever dare questioning the theory of evolution.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think that science and religion work the same way: that there is a prevailing dogma that cannot be challenged. But science *doesn't* work that way. Anyone can challenge any theory they want *provided* that they have the facts on their side, can make sound arguments from those facts and don't ignore facts that are "inconvenient."
>>> Correction:Atheists seem to think that science and religion have to work the same way.
>>
>> I think it would be beneficial if there was some rationality in religion
> All the necessary rationaliy has been provided.

Oh good. Where is it? I'd like to read it and evaluate it for myself.

> But God knows every single atom in the universe. How can a mere human being comprehend his rationale?
> The spiritual realm must come to you. Your mind is simply too puny to go there.

You're making excuses.

>> but I also appreciate why it isn't wanted.
>>
>>> Human beings try to find the truth by fumbling around in the dark. And what they believe today may change tomorrow.
>>
>> Exactly right. And as soon as you acknowledge that this applies to
>> *everything* that we aren't personally responsible for, you'll have made
>> some progress. If you think I'm wrong about that, explain to me why
>> science converges while religion diverges. Why are there in excess of
>> 30,000 sects of Christianity now if there was only one sect to start with?
> You are dealing with a spiritual reality ,where faith is required and where the devil is allowed to deceive people.

I am 100% certain that no Christian believes that they've been deceived
by the Devil. You obviously believe that some of them have been. How do
you know that you aren't one of them?

> You have a transcendental nature that will survive the death of the body.
> God will bring every single person into judgement based on the secret thoughts of his heart and the choices that he made during his earthly existence.

You have yet to provide a good reason why I should believe any of this.

>>> But true religion proceeds from divine revelation.
>>
>> How can you demonstrate to me that "divine revelation" actually comes
>> from anything divine rather than simply emerging from the mind of the
>> person who claims to have had such a revelation?
> "By faith we know that the world was created by the word of God." Faith is a fundamental requirement. I experience the presence of God.
> But I had to belive

As I asked above, how do you know that you haven't been deceived?

>> Do you accept that anyone who claims to have had a divine revelation has
>> *actually* had one?

It's interesting that you didn't respond to this question. Perhaps you'd
care to correct that oversight.

>>> It is eternal and immutable.
>>
>> I see. God *can't* change his mind. Good to know.
>>
>> When Moses (assuming he actually existed) was (supposedly) in Midian,
>> God (assuming he exists) selected Moses to return to Egypt to free the
>> Israelites (assuming they were ever enslaved there, for which there is
>> no evidence). While Moses was on his way to Egypt, God decided to kill
>> Moses for reasons that aren't given. Fortunately, Zepporah (assuming she
>> existed) intervened and God relented, thereby allowing Moses to complete
>> the mission that God had originally charged him with.
>>
>> Looks to me as though God *can* change his mind.
> Of course. In the Bible God sent Jonah to announce the destruction of Niniveh. But the people repented and God changed his mind.
> However God does not repent like a man does. He knows everything already.

You said that divine revelation was immutable. Now you say that it
changes. You need to make up your mind.

>>> God does not err.
>>
>> Ah, good to know. So God intended that Adam and Eve should eat from the
>> Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. After all, why else place them
>> near the Tree in the first place?
> God is indeed prescient.
> According the Bible Jesus Christ ,the lamb of God,was crucified ,before the creation of the world.
> God has assigned every single day of your life. He knows how and when you are going die.
> That's why human science will always come up short. You need humility and a child like faith,in order to be saved.
> That's because your mind cannot help you with spiritual matters.
> "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
> Matthew 18v3

[ignoring proselytization which you've already admitted to being pointless]

>>>> The reason why it's so very difficult to argue against the theory of evolution is because it's a very *good* explanation for observed phenomena.
>>
>>> To you perhaps. To me it looks like an abominable patch up job.
>>
>> You're seeing precisely what you're looking for. That you can't even
>> accurately explain what evolution is, regardless of whether you believe
>> it or not, ought to tell you something about your objectivity. Here's a
>> free hint for you: one *cannot* effectively argue against ideas that one
>> doesn't actually understand.
> I understand that commom descent between man and animal and improved functionality,
> are the basic tenets of evolution.

No, common descent is a theory for which evolution is the mechanism. The
basic tenets of the theory of evolution are genetic mutation and natural
selection. That's it.

> As far as I can see ,evolutionists have failed to substantiate those assumptions,thus far.

Which assumptions are you referring to, specifically?

Common descent is *not* an assumption. It's a conclusion.

> Now that you mention it, evolution might be something completely different. That would make a lot of sense.
> In that case ,I would be glad to accept your definition and rectify my error.

The briefest statement of the theory of evolution runs something like:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological
populations over successive generations."

>>>>> When scientific objectivity is not possible ,the conclusions are not trustworthy.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely correct. In the light of that, explain to me again why I should trust any of your beliefs.
>>> "What is born of the flesh is flesh. What is born of the Spirit is spirit." It has to be between you and God.
>>
>> So you can think of no *good* reason why I should trust any of your
>> beliefs? That seems to be what you're saying.

No response? Interesting...

>>>>> A tell tale sign: whenever somebody says that he or she knows for a fact what happened a million years ago,you have a blind fanatic in your hand.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it about time for you to accept that people who make a career out of the study of the past might actually know something more about it than you do? To call such people "blind fanatics" is beyond the pale. In regard to knowing what happened a million years ago, I'd suggest that *you* are far more a "blind fanatic" than anyone else. Your entire attitude is "I certainly don't know so no one else is allowed to know either."
> I cannot repeat that enough : Faith and human science are two different things : The first comes from personal efforts, the second comes from revelation and the supernatural mainfestation of God.

I think you got that backwards. In any case, when you can show that
revelation is in any way reliable and that the supernatural exists, get
back to me.

>>> Scientists keep getting history wrong and they keep changing their theories.
>>
>> By "changing their theories", I assume that you know that theories
>> *improve* as new facts emerge. Theories are rarely entirely overthrown
>> in favor of something completely novel. Far more frequently, theories
>> are *changed* to take new facts into consideration if this can be done
>> without otherwise damaging the theory.
>>
>> You seem to be of the opinion that theories that improve with time are a
>> problem. They aren't. Even *you* do this in real life with everything
>> except your religious beliefs.
> Except that the world does not run on changing theories .It runs on immutable facts.

Theories are explanations for facts. Surely you knew that.

> Your little fumblings around are of very limited value.

You enjoy your quality of life due to "little fumblings around." I can't
see that faith has *any* value.

>>> A fact is something actually observed. A fact does not change.
>>
>> Correct. So why is it that you have none?
> I know you don't like metaphors.But a blind man cannot see the hand of God. You need a pair of eyes.

All I've been asking is for you to demonstrate that you aren't like
someone who has Anton-Babinski syndrome. You've only ever been able to
respond with vague platitudes. There's a reason for that.

[August Rode]

On 05/07/2014 7:14 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 10:30:11 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> On 04/07/2014 6:40 PM, Jope wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 21:57:06 UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:32:14 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 10,000,000yrs?20yrs=500000/300generations=1667
>>>>>>> I am using figures provided by Haldane himself.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Haldane offered 20 years as the average Length of a generation.
>>>>
>>>>> I only gave Haldane's calculations.
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, accusing me of being inept is the same thing as accusing Haldane himself.
>>>>
>>>> Are you telling me that Haldane doesn't know anything more about why units of measure are important than you? I really find that hard to believe.
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you a hint about why I'm making an issue of it here. Getting the units of measure correct is a check that I use to determine whether you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. If you can't get (or be bothered to get) the units of measure correct, then you're really not doing a calculation. Personally, I think Darwin123 is right: you do numerology but think you're doing mathematics. The only person you're succeeding in fooling is yourself.
>>>
>>> What units of measure?
>>
>> It's as I thought. You *must* have failed any science course you ever took.
> Wouldn't it be simpler to answer the question?

What's the fun of that? That you don't have a clue what a unit of
measure is and why they're important is mildly entertaining. That you
don't have the presence of mind to enter "unit of measure" into Google
is far more entertaining.

>>> You seem to be in another planet with this thing. Maybe you should try to google search "Haldane's dilemma" instead of going out on a limb.
>>
>> I skimmed Haldane's original paper, located here:
>>
>> <http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf>
>>
>> I know just by looking at it that you don't stand a chance of being able
>> to understand the mathematics involved. I can't comment on it
>> meaningfully as it requires a level of understanding of biology that I
>> don't have. Your grasp of biology is worse than mine by a long shot, so
>> I know that you aren't basing your arguments on anything that Haldane wrote.
>>
>> You said you used Haldane's calculations. I provided the link to
>> Haldane's paper. I can't find in that paper the calculation that you
>> present. So where you got that calculation from?
>
> "There is something lacking with your searching ablity.

Silly me. My preference for going back to original sources to see what
was actually said is to blame.

In any case, the calculations that you quoted aren't from Haldane as you
claimed but are from an article by Robert Williams (whoever that is).
For future reference. it is a mark of intellectual dishonesty to
attribute one author's work to another.

> Let me offer you a simple link. By the way the article is pro evolution:
> "Haldane claimed that in a fixed population (a population that is neither growing nor shrinking in the number of its member animals) of relatively slowly reproducing mammals, no more than 1 gene could be fixed per 300 generations due to the cost of substitution. Haldane assumed that the deaths caused by the newly disadvantageous gene's lower fitness (possibly due to a change in environment) would be over and above the "background" death rate - the naturally occurring deaths due to all reasons other than the lowered fitness of the gene. Haldane estimated that the substitution cost (for a diploid) would require the deaths of 30 times the population size for a single gene fixation from a very rare mutation to homozygous for the entire population. Since he claimed that the intensity of selection rarely exceeded 10%, Haldane believed a cost of 30 times the population size for the substitution would require 300 generations (30 / 0.1) to fix a single gene."
> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane.html
> If you read that simple article,you will no longer be in the dark.

I'll read it.

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:yI-dnY3-s6UE-SXO...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Ralph" wrote:
>>> Jesus is dead, Jope, get used to it!
>>
>> Was, not is.
>>
>> "I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am
>> alive for evermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell
>> and of death."
>> Revelation 1:18
>
> If he is still alive, produce him:-))).

You will soon see Him on the coming Day.

"Behold, he is coming with the clouds,"
and "every eye will see him [including Ralph],
even those who pierced him";
and all peoples on earth "will mourn
because of him."
So shall it be! Amen.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says
the Lord God, "who is, and who was,
and who is to come, the Almighty."
Revelation 1:7,8

> Thanks for playin,g Andrew.

The Game of Life.

We are all actors.

[August Rode]

On 05/07/2014 7:20 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 10:30:11 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:

<snip>

>> I skimmed Haldane's original paper, located here:
>>
>> <http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf>
>>
>> I know just by looking at it that you don't stand a chance of being able
>> to understand the mathematics involved. I can't comment on it
>> meaningfully as it requires a level of understanding of biology that I
>> don't have. Your grasp of biology is worse than mine by a long shot,
> I did take biology in class.

Your class may have studied biology. I suspect you skipped class to
smoke dope behind the gym.

> However I am blaming you for holding back your fire,instead of contributing to the discussion.
> Darwin123 is having a hard time with Haldane's dilemma.

Not that I can tell.

> With your math and biology background ,you could have at least offered your opinion.

Why isn't the opinion of any number of other people good enough for you?
Haldane published his paper in 1957 (if I recall correctly). Do you
seriously think that our understanding of things biological hasn't
advanced since then? Haldane's dilemma isn't considered valid and hasn't
been for a decade or two. It's only creationists who keep vomiting it up
and beaming over it as though it's unanswerable.

<snip>

[Jope]

According to current scientific knowledge,not even a trace of soft tissue cannot survive 60 million years.

>
>
>
> > Yet they cannot find a reasonable hominid skeleton.
>
>
>
> As far as I'm aware, virtually all of the hominid bone fragments that
>
> have been found have been virtually on the surface of the ground. That
>
> makes them subject to the elements. I did point that out about.
>
>
>
> Lucy's skeleton (Australopithecus afarensis) is about 40% complete.
>
> Given the conditions in which it was found (primarily exposed on the
>
> surface of the ground and in the process of disintegrating), 40% is not bad.
>
>
>
> Ardi's skeleton (Ardipithecus ramidus) is slightly more complete than
>
> Lucy's.
>
>
>
> "Little Foot" is a nearly complete skeleton of an australopithecine.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Foot>
>
>
>
> "Turkana Boy" is a nearly complete skeleton of a Homo ergaster.
>
>
>
> > But you will not find such hominid bones,because they simply never existed.
>
>
>
> You've got a really serious case of denial there, Joel. In case you
>
> think that we both work from the same set of facts, here's one instance
>
> where you are actively discarding inconvenient facts simply because you
>
> can't deal with them.

Let's see:
NEBRASKA MAN ,RAMAPITHECUS,AUSTRALOPITHECINE, JAVA MAN,PEKING MAN,PILTDOWN MAN... All bogus.
And my favorite:
"During the upper pleistocene era ,a flying man (HOMO ALATUM)came on the scene.Unfortunately,HOMO ALATUM had an evolutionary flaw:during coupling he had to stay on the ground in some kind of daze,and the aggressive cruelosaurus took advantage of that flaw.Consequently, homo alatum disappeared with few traces.
Some scientists however, believe that there were a few specimen that survived all the way to the bronze age.And that is probably where, those stories of angels came from."
The possibilitiesare endless,if you know how to play with bone fragments.

>
>
>
> >>>> Curiously, transitional skeletons have been discovered all over the place.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Skeletal fragments are all over the place,not a whole fossil like the dinosaur, for instance.Homo neanderthalensis was first constructed from a mere arm bone.Do check your facts.
>
> >>> Let me re-phrase:
>
> >>> If evolution was true,whole hominids skeletons would have been found by now.
>
> >>
>
> >> Your logic looks *really* twisted. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>
> >> Let me try this one out on you... If Christianity was true, whole
>
> >> original manuscripts of the New Testament books would have been found by
>
> >> now. When you figure out what's wrong with what I just said, you should
>
> >> understand why your claim is just as silly.
>
> > That hardly makes sense.
>
>
>
> In fact, it makes more sense than your statement did.
>
>
>
> Being able to find "whole hominids [sic] skeletons" isn't contingent on
>
> whether or not evolution is true. It's contingent on looking in the
>
> right place, it's contingent on the fossils having survived the
>
> elements, and it's probably contingent on a bunch of other factors as
>
> well. (By the way, that evolution occurs *is* true. If it wasn't, there
>
> would have been no need for a theory of evolution to explain it.)
>
>
>
> However, if the New Testament is "God-breathed", then why would God have
>
> allowed the original manuscripts of the New Testament books to have
>
> apparently evaporated? Why would he have allowed those books to develop
>
> more manuscript variations than there are words in the New Testament?

It is eveident that the bIble had to be translated into many languages. And thank to the hellenisation efforts that started with Alexander the great,we ended up with greek manuscripts. However,the basic salvation message is uniform across all translations. No excuses there.

>
>
>
> >> By the way:
>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy>
>
>
>
> Perhaps you'll actually look at the link this time. Perhaps you'll
>
> continue to ignore it.
>
>
>
> >>>>> Truth be told,Darwin predicted just that. Unfortunately,evolutionists have had no other choice but to use their own imagination in order to salvage their beloved theory.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> And to quote Gould:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> You've used these quotes before. As before, you are making as little effort to understand what Gould was trying to say as you can get away with. Both quotes are true but neither is an argument against evolution. I'm sure that this has been explained to you previously so I'm not going to do so again unless you ask me to.
>
> >>> I am asking ,with anticipation.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'll do it in a new thread as soon as you've provided proper citations
>
> >> for these quotes. I'm not going to do all of the heavy lifting.
>
> > If you cannot lift,don't try to pretend.
>
>
>
> You're being an ass. I said I wasn't going to do *all* of the heavy
>
> lifting.
>
>
>
> > Gould 's statement is simple and straightforward. And he is not the only one who has said the very same thing.
>
> > "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Gould
>
> > Unless he is using a coded language;What else could that possibly mean?
>
>
>
> You tell me. In your own words, what do you think the quote means?

I don't see the need to improve on Gould's words. Here what the quote means:

[Jope]

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 7:58:25 PM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 7:20 PM, Jope wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, July 5, 2014 10:30:11 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> I skimmed Haldane's original paper, located here:
>
> >>
>
> >> <http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf>
>
> >>
>
> >> I know just by looking at it that you don't stand a chance of being able
>
> >> to understand the mathematics involved. I can't comment on it
>
> >> meaningfully as it requires a level of understanding of biology that I
>
> >> don't have. Your grasp of biology is worse than mine by a long shot,
>
> > I did take biology in class.
>
>
>
> Your class may have studied biology. I suspect you skipped class to
>
> smoke dope behind the gym.

I am a Godly man. Are you so frustrated that you have to resort to that kind of insult. Now, I am disappointed in you.

>
>
>
> > However I am blaming you for holding back your fire,instead of contributing to the discussion.
>
> > Darwin123 is having a hard time with Haldane's dilemma.
>
>
>
> Not that I can tell.

That was my exact opinion.

>
>
>
> > With your math and biology background ,you could have at least offered your opinion.
>
>
>
> Why isn't the opinion of any number of other people good enough for you?
>
> Haldane published his paper in 1957 (if I recall correctly). Do you
>
> seriously think that our understanding of things biological hasn't
>

> advanced since then? The answer: Not really.

Haldane's dilemma isn't considered valid and hasn't
>
> been for a decade or two. It's only creationists who keep vomiting it up
>
> and beaming over it as though it's unanswerable.

I think you've lost it.
>
>
>
> <snip>