Another falsification test for evolution

[Socrates]

The famous British evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane proposed, in the context of a debate with leading anti-evolutionists of his day, the following test for falsification of evolution. Since natural selection can only operated on hypothetical intermediate stages that would provide an advantage over their predecessors, it could not produce:
‘…various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.’ [Dewar, D., Davies, L.M. and Haldane, J.B.S., Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane, Watts & Co. Ltd / Paternoster Press, London, p. 90, 1949]But this test, from one of its own, unlike pathetic self-serving tests by the likes of Goochdad :dufus:, really has been falsified. E.g. we now know that there are amazing rotary motors in living organisms which surely count as “wheels”, e.g. the bacterial flagellum and ATP-synthase—see Design in Living Organisms: Motors (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3799.asp).

There are also numerous organisms that use magnetic sensors, including monarch butterflies, turtles and magnetotactic bacteria, so that's strike two against Haldane, so evolution's out!:bonk:

[QED]

I'd give my left leg to see the full quote in context. Teacher, may I have a library pass?

[Socratism]

Was that the same Haldane that was so puzzled regarding how ape-like creatures could mutate into humans in such a short period of time, the so-called Haldane's Dilemma?

[Goochdad]

Socrates,

Exactly what was wrong with my falsification proposal? Care to be specific? What part of the 'YEC hypothesis' accounts for the astonishing lack of bony fish fossils from the Burgess Shale?

You can whinge about it all you want, but the challenge still stands. Why aren't ICR 'scientists' out doing fossil digs looking for those mammals in Cambrian layers? Hmmm?

[Socratism]

Looks like a Mexican standoff: neither theory is worth much. ;)

BTW, why are dinosaur bones sometimes found lying loose on the top of the ground?

[Celsus]

03-05-2003 @ 11:02 PM
Socratism:
BTW, why are dinosaur bones sometimes found lying loose on the top of the ground? Erosion.

[Socrates]

Socratism:

Was that the same Haldane that was so puzzled regarding how ape-like creatures could mutate into humans in such a short period of time, the so-called Haldane's Dilemma?Indeed it was—John Burdon Sanderson Haldane (1892–1964)! And it's still a problem for evolutionists—see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2267.asp).

[Celsus]

Socrates,

Are you going to share any more of the context of that quote?

Cheers,
Joel

[Socrates]

The quote speaks for itself, so it's the onus is on the person calling himself after a thoroughly discredited and now deservedly unknown Christ-hater to try to prove that it's out of context. It seems too much to expect that someone might even try to deal with the issues.

[Celsus]

Hello again Socrates,

Unfortunately, that reference is not commonly available--it's a 1949 publication. Secondly, JBS Haldane, or for that matter, Darwin, are not the final word on evolution. It's entirely possible that he's wrong, depending on the evidence or analysis he's using--of which half a sentence is hardly enough to make your point conclusive in any way. Science isn't proven by arguing from authority.

So why can't you show us some of that grace Christians are reknown for?

Joel

[Jimmy Higgins]

‘…various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.’ [Dewar, D., Davies, L.M. and Haldane, J.B.S., Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane, Watts & Co. Ltd / Paternoster Press, London, p. 90, 1949]

Hi there Socretes. I'm kinda new here. Stumbled onto the site. I'm intrigued by your quote here. I've tried to search high and low everywhere on the internet, and can only find that quote linked in one way or another to Answers in Genesis. I'm at a loss here. :huh:

Your quote has a "..." at the beginning of it. Being the anal retentive person I tend to be, :lol: , I was wondering if you could give us the entire quote. In actuality, if you could give the entire section it refers to in the book, that would be best, but I'd certainly would appreciate having that full sentence. Thanks. I'll just wait and bounce for a while :joy:

:teeth: Thanks.

[Socratism]

Dear Joel,

So why can't you show us some of that grace Christians are reknown for?

The Bible mentions grace hundreds of times, but almost without exception it is talking about the Grace of God toward human beings. Not being God Christians cannot show you the majesty of that type of Grace. You can only get that from God Himself who will grant it if you will humbly bow and accept Him and His Grace.

Short of that He has nothing but righteous wrath to show you..

[QED]

Really Soc... I assume that since you cited a primary source for your quote that you read it in the original. Surely you still have access to the copy and could flesh out this quote with some context. It really isn't too much to ask, since the book is likely long out of print, and likely very difficult to get from any library outside of a few very Ivy League institutions and the Library of Congress. The internet doesn't have any reference to it at all that I could find, apart from AiG, so you are the only one sitting on the rest of that sentence. You have to admit that it looks kind of suspicious that the first half of the sentence is chopped off completely. It's almost like they didn't want us to see that part.

[Socrates]

Celsus still rambles on with excuses:
Unfortunately, that reference is not commonly available—it's a 1949 publication.Yeah, because no one would say that now woud they, since we know motors and magnets exist in living organisms!Secondly, JBS Haldane, or for that matter, Darwin, are not the final word on evolution. It's entirely possible that he's wrong, ...But you haven't shown this, and I was offering an alternative falsification test. I'm still waiting to see either why it is no such thing, or whether evolution can pass this test.... depending on the evidence or analysis he's using--of which half a sentence is hardly enough to make your point conclusive in any way.Once more, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the quote is wrong. I've done the legwork to find the source some time ago, so it's your turn. Why should I waste my time and effort on someone who obviously is not sincere? Science isn't proven by arguing from authority.You better tell that to your evolutionist buddies who frequently offer nothing more than “All scientists believe in evolution.”So why can't you show us some of that grace Christians are reknown for?Isn't it amazing—someone who names himself after one of the earliest Christ-haters wants some of the benefits (as he perceives them) of Christianity, yet fights with all his might against the theology underlying these benefits.

In any case, Christian love (αγαπη agape) is not sickly sweet sentimentality, and can involve what is now known as “tough love”—see What is Agape and How Did It Work? (http://www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html)

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-06-2003 @ 08:14 AM
Socrates:

Celsus still rambles on with excuses:Why the insults? Can't we be civil please? Thanks.
Unfortunately, that reference is not commonly available—it's a 1949 publication.Yeah, because no one would say that now woud they, since we know motors and magnets exist in living organisms!So you don't have the reference? I remember in college, someone referencing to a quote, secondarily. Turned out the professor was an expert on the subject under discussion and ripped the student a new one for quoting secondarily, without any other backup to the quotation. It wasn't a pretty site. But I got an A on my paper so, dancing banana to that. :yipee:

But Socretes, why do you think Newspapers need more than one source for a story? Because they need to really back it up, or they could be embarrassed. Your quote, actually, AIG's quote is really incomplete, and without anyone else to back it up, it really is worthless, because it turns into a he said/she said argument, and based on AIG's credibility... well... we don't need to go there.

Could you please give us the entire quote? Thanks. I won't bounce anymore because my rump hurts. :tongue:

[Celsus]

Hi Socrates,
03-06-2003 @ 09:14 PM
Socrates:

Celsus still rambles on with excuses:
Unfortunately, that reference is not commonly available—it's a 1949 publication.Yeah, because no one would say that now woud they, since we know motors and magnets exist in living organisms!
Or maybe because people have proven that quote of JBS Haldane's wrong via the scientific method (which, as you might have noticed, differs significantly from creationist "method" of "science" via quote mining). Essentially, from what little you have chosen to bestow on us unworthy atheists, it appears to be the argument from ignorance being put in Haldane's mouth. But I respect him more than that--maybe he has good reasons. Unfortunately, you won't back it up with anything approximating substantial.
Secondly, JBS Haldane, or for that matter, Darwin, are not the final word on evolution. It's entirely possible that he's wrong, ...But you haven't shown this, and I was offering an alternative falsification test. I'm still waiting to see either why it is no such thing, or whether evolution can pass this test.
The problem would be that you haven't shown anything. Half a sentence does not a scientific proposition make. Unless that's the best that creationists can come up with.
... depending on the evidence or analysis he's using--of which half a sentence is hardly enough to make your point conclusive in any way.Once more, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the quote is wrong. I've done the legwork to find the source some time ago, so it's your turn. Why should I waste my time and effort on someone who obviously is not sincere?
Ok, the quote as it stands is simply the argument from ignorance. Perhaps this quote is like the infamously quote-mined statement by Darwin about the complexity of the eye, whereby Darwin then proceeds to show exactly that all he was doing was making rhetorical play to emphasise the explanatory strengths of evolutionary theory. And I'd like you to prove that you actually found that book and didn't just copy'n'paste it from AiG. Perhaps you could list the chapters?
...snip...
So why can't you show us some of that grace Christians are reknown for?Isn't it amazing—someone who names himself after one of the earliest Christ-haters wants some of the benefits (as he perceives them) of Christianity, yet fights with all his might against the theology underlying these benefits.
No no Socrates, I'm just asking that you not show too much hypocrisy that might cause your Christian brethren to stumble.
In any case, Christian love (αγαπη agape) is not sickly sweet sentimentality, and can involve what is now known as “tough love”—see What is Agape and How Did It Work? (http://www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html)
Ah... Lovely what a little bit of selective evidence will do to prove your case. Let's see, which fruits of the Spirit have you demonstrated thus far? And what does Matthew 7:15-16 have to say about the fruits as an identifying mark?

Cheers,
Joel

[Muad'Dib]

Hi Socrates,

Would you be willing to post the context of the quote? I for one would really appreciate it, as I can't find the book anywhere in the local library system or even through online booksellers.

Thanks,
Muad'Dib

[Socrates]

Nope, the rule is that a quote is innocent until proven guilty. I found it, so everyone else can. But you can put this in any reasonable context you like, and the point will still stand. How about explaining why this is not a falsification test?

BTW, AiG advises against using the Darwin eye quote here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp). But to these rabid misotheists, creationists are damned even when they correct errors or own up to them. Yet textbooks still use fake embryo pics, and took 40 years to expose the amateurish Piltdown hoax.

[Celsus]

Note from AiG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp):
The uncertainty in the above comment might have been dealt with by carefully reading not only our comments, but Darwin’s book.
...
So in this particular case, quoting the above paragraph out of context, it makes it sound as if Darwin agrees that it is absurd. His own words, however, make it clear that he does not think so at all; he is merely saying that at first glance, without considering the whole issue of natural selection, it seems absurd. Darwin then goes on to say the heliocentric theory likewise seems absurd on first impression but is not.
Seems that Socrates should be kind enough to help us out a little (ta for the link!). If that's what it took to undo one quote, why not another? Isn't science the joint pursuit of understanding? Or are you not actually confident enough to back up your quotes?

Joel

[Socratism]

Answer to why so few fish fossils are found in the Burgess Shale.

Moving water.

[Celsus]

Hi Socratism,

So why do we find swimmers like Odaraia, the amazing Anomalocaris, and Pikaia in the same strata? And what about floaters like Ctenorhabdotus? And the question was why were there no bony fish, btw.

Joel

[RufusAtticus]

03-05-2003 @ 10:42 AM
Socrates:

Socratism:

Was that the same Haldane that was so puzzled regarding how ape-like creatures could mutate into humans in such a short period of time, the so-called Haldane's Dilemma?Indeed it was—John Burdon Sanderson Haldane (1892–1964)! And it's still a problem for evolutionists—see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2267.asp).

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
If nothing more, creationist claims about Haldane's Dilemma show that they don't understand how scientific modling works.

In science when we are going to develop a model to make predictions we start out with assumptions. These assumptions set up the rules that the model must live in. For example in evolutionary biology, it is common for a model's assumption to be that the organism is diploid and sexual. The known constraint of modeling is that if something doesn't fit your assumptions then the conclusions of your model are likley to be off.

One assumption of Haldane's model is that a sudden environmental shift causes previously rare deliterous alleles to become highly favorable. The cost of substitution comes from the assumption that after the environmental shift, favorable alleles are rare, deliterous alleles are common, and the viability differences between them are striking.

Haldane's Dilemma simply doesn't apply to beneficial mutations which can arise without an environmental shift and without the cost to substitution.

{Edit: Minor English stuff.}

[Bubba]

Thanks for inserting that bit of rational thought into the discussion, Rufus.

Could we please have an answer to the bony fish/burgess shale question please? One of the reasons that I think evolution is true is that there are about 8 million questions like this that are better explained by the evolutionary model than the creationist model.

Bubba:smile:

[Muad'Dib]

03-07-2003 @ 05:31 AM
Socrates:

Nope, the rule is that a quote is innocent until proven guilty. I found it, so everyone else can. So you do have the book then? May I make arrangements with you to photocopy the relevant passage and send it to me? I'd be happy to offer you whatever compensation you feel is appropriate.

Thanks,
Muad'Dib

[Bubba]

Yes, the original context of the quote would be nice.

Bubba

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-07-2003 @ 08:31 AM
Socrates: (with my emphasis)
Nope, the rule is that a quote is innocent until proven guilty. I found it, so everyone else can.
As far as "a quote is innocent until proven guilty", according to http://www.trentu.ca/geography/swurtele/slr/referencing.html
they suggest that:References to a work you have not read:
"Occasionally, you must refer to something that you have not read but that has been cited or quoted in a work that you have read. It is best to do this only when absolutely necessary" (Strath et al. 1993, 102).As to the example they give:E.g. (McKinney 1983 as cited in Johnson 1988, 81)
E.g. (Wicker 1969 as quoted in Zanna, Olson and Fazio 1980, 107)
Source for the two examples: Strath et al. (1993, 102).

But this only applies if you haven't read the actual source you are quoting. If that isn't the case, then by all means, you're much luckier than I am. I can't find that bloody book anywhere. Where'd you get it? Did you find it at a place online, at a local store, or was the actual text on some webpage. Thanks in advance!

[Socrates]

I have read the book, but AFAIR Haldane was representing the New Zealand Rationalists, which would explain why I could find it in the Southern Hemisphere more easily than you can.

But first of all, the ignoramus Celsus accused me of lying and of not having read the quote in context, so I'm not going to go to any trouble for him. And second, I fail to see what reasonable context would undermine the point I'm making, so why all the filibustering from others?

[Socrates]

RufusAtticus showed that he has no idea about the of Haldane's dilemma. Here's something else, this time from a devastating demolition of Dawkins: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp:

Are mutations and natural selection sufficient?
Dawkins, following Darwin, emphasizes that any mutation, however slight, will have a survival value. Even the most complex organisms can supposedly be built up from an accumulation of such changes over eons. But this assertion has been severely undermined in two recent books: Walter ReMine’s The Biotic Message29 and Lee Spetner’s Not By Chance.30 The objections include:

Mutation rate is very low—10–9–10–10 per nucleotide per generation.

Of these, beneficial mutations are a small fraction—90–95% of mutations are harmful, 5–10% are neutral. And as discussed before, observed beneficial mutations are not the information-gaining type needed for evolution.

The smaller the change, the smaller the selective advantage. This is expressed by the selection coefficient s. If a mutation has s = 0.001 or 0.1%, a supposedly typical value, then the number of surviving offspring is 0.1% greater for organisms with the mutant than without it. But the smaller the selective advantage, the more likely that random effects (e.g. genetic drift) will eliminate it—its probability of survival is about 2s.31 So the above mutation has only one chance in 500 of surviving, even though it is beneficial.

Even if a beneficial mutation survives, for it to become fixed in a population, the organisms not carrying it must be eliminated. This is the cost of substitution. This limits the amount of substitution which can occur in a given time. This is known as Haldane’s Dilemma,32 after J.B.S. Haldane, one of the world’s leading evolutionists (and a Stalin-supporting communist for a while). He wanted evolution to work, but couldn’t get around his dilemma.

Take a population of 100,000. If only a male and female pair have the new trait, natural selection must eliminate the other 99,998 and all their heirs. If there is perfect selection (s = 1), this can happen in one generation. But this means that for every new trait, 49,999 individuals must be eliminated without offspring (This should be a warning to theistic evolutionists: death is called ‘the last enemy’ (1 Cor. 15:26), so how could God use all these deaths as a means to achieve a ‘very good’ creation (Gen. 1:31)?). Then the population must be regenerated with these survivors.

Anyway, even if evolution happened at the maximum speed for 10 million years, how many traits could be substituted in a creature with human-like generation times of say 20 years? Only 500,000. This small number of nucleotides is only a small fraction of the forty 500-page books worth of information (120 million base pairs) which are needed to transform an ape into a man. And in real life, selection is far less intense, meaning that only about 1700 substitutions could occur.

These problems have largely been ignored in Dawkins’ propaganda. Many of his computer simulations of evolution use ‘organisms’ with high reproductive rates (producing many offspring), high mutation rates, a large probability of a beneficial mutation, and a selection coefficient of 1 (also, his ‘organisms’ have tiny ‘genomes’ with minute information content, and they are not affected by the chemical and thermodynamic constraints of a real organism).

Nilsson and Pelger did account for selection coefficients, although they chose s = 0.01 for each step in their simulation, larger than considered typical in nature. But they took no account of the tiny rate of favourable mutations. They merely assumed a certain variability in a population, and assumed that this would remain constant throughout. But in a real population, natural selection could select only from the variability in existing genes for the best vision, but culling those for inferior vision. This would reduce variability, because genes are eliminated. This is not the same as having mutations to produce better and better eyes. Neither did their simulation prove that simple mutations could continually produce 1% improvements. Somewhere along the way, totally new genes would be required.

[Celsus]

Hi Socrates,

Despite your constant insults, I have tried to remain civil and polite towards you. Where did I accuse you of lying? All I said is prove that you have it by showing more of the quote, or some other part of the book. It appears my signature gets more and more relevant for every denial you make.

Joel

[QED]

03-08-2003 @ 01:59 AM
Socrates:

And second, I fail to see what reasonable context would undermine the point I'm making, so why all the filibustering from others?

Well, your OP & the material at AiG seems to indicate that we could expect the first half of Haldane's sentence to read something like:

"An excellent falsification of Darwinian evolution would be..."

together with the fragment that you quoted, ‘…various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.' But we don't really know what the first half of the sentence says. We only know that it was a statement about such mechanisms. This object phrase lacks not only context, but it lacks a subject and predicate, depriving it of any meaning whatsoever. Compare it to this sentence fragment "...rocks, sand, and dust, which are mainly mineral in nature."

Do we get to fill in the blanks?

How about:

"We expect one day that new discoveries will even show us evolution can even produce … various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect."

or...

"I prophesy that one day a Catholic will write a popular book that denies the validity of evolution on the basis of ... various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect."

The possibilities are endless. Are we to take your word that the first half of this sentence, properly rendered and understood, would be a blanket assertion that the appearance of any of these mechanisms would effectively falsify Darwinian evolution (and not, for instance, the universality of a single mechanism for it)?

I don't know about others here, but I am not very comfortable with taking a creationist's word for much of anything to do with science, without first hearing them back up their claims with some facts. In this case, the missing data that would go a long way toward making your position believable is merely the first half of a sentence. That's not a lot to ask.

[Snowball]

03-07-2003 @ 01:40 PM
Bubba:

Thanks for inserting that bit of rational thought into the discussion, Rufus.


Bubba:

Do you not find it at all disconcerting that you are arguing with all the atheists?? As a "Christian" I would imagine that this would throw up a red flag for you. :hrm:

[RufusAtticus]

03-07-2003 @ 09:04 PM
Socrates:

RufusAtticus showed that he has no idea about the of Haldane's dilemma. Here's something else, this time from a devastating demolition of Dawkins: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp:

Socrates,
You think that I, a population geneticist and theortician, have no grasp of Haldane's dilemma because of what you read on AiG. :rofl:
Go read Haldane's original work then try to say I don't have a grasp of it. Reading a webpage with a completely erroneous understanding of Haldane's dilemma, is no way to show that I've made any mistakes.

Take for example this section:
Even if a beneficial mutation survives, for it to become fixed in a population, the organisms not carrying it must be eliminated. This is the cost of substitution. This limits the amount of substitution which can occur in a given time. This is known as Haldane’s Dilemma,32 after J.B.S. Haldane, one of the world’s leading evolutionists (and a Stalin-supporting communist for a while). He wanted evolution to work, but couldn’t get around his dilemma.

First note the ad hominem about Haldane being a communist. His politics are completely irrelevent. This isn't the first time AiG has done such a childish thing. AiG also gets the cost of substitution wrong. The cost of substitution is that after the environment shift required for the model, the only viable alleles are rare in the population, thus the population experiences high mortality. This is different than a beneficial allele being produced by mutation with out an environmental shift. In that instance there is no cost to substitution since the common form, although less fit, is still viable.

[Bald Ape]

The full context of the quote (any typos probably mine):

There are, of course, difficulties in the theory of evolution. You [Dewar] raised a selection of the most serious ones. I agree with you that some processes, such as the evolution of the mammalian ear bones, probably occured by sudden leaps. In most cases, for example, those of hanging nests and aquatic spiders, we can find intermediates. It is never, however, necessary to postulate a leap which would impy prevision by a designer. That is why one finds no example of various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect. Whereas structures half-way between a leg and a wing, for example the patagium of "flying squirrels" are useful."

Based on this quote, it seems safe to say that if the theory of evolution as understood 50 years ago by J.B.S. Haldane was true and complete (in particular the notion that evolutionary pathways could only exist wherein every predecessor of a given structure was a simplified version of that structue, used solely for the same function of that structure) we'd predict that one would never see such structures as the bacterium's flagellum in nature.

Anyway, thanks for the great reference, Socrates - a demonstration of the self-correcting nature of science surely brightens all of our days.

[ardipithecus]

Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
Bald Ape:

The full context of the quote (any typos probably mine):



Based on this quote, it seems safe to say that if the theory of evolution as understood 50 years ago by J.B.S. Haldane was true and complete (in particular the notion that evolutionary pathways could only exist wherein every predecessor of a given structure was a simplified version of that structue, used solely for the same function of that structure) we'd predict that one would never see such structures as the bacterium's flagellum in nature.

Anyway, thanks for the great reference, Socrates - a demonstration of the self-correcting nature of science surely brightens all of our days.

Bald Ape, An additional question about the context. I strongly suspect that Haldane was thinking about macroscopic structures in animals in that comment. After all Haldane was not a microbiologist nor I believe someone who dealt with things molecular. Do I hit close to the mark?

[Bald Ape]

In fact, after a more thorough reading of the debate, one notes a distinct absense of mention of any microscopic biological features whatsoever, from either side - it's like watching three people quibble about how to fit a 1,000-piece puzzle together, with only 100 of the pieces available. Of course, 50 years later, with nearly all of the pieces finally available, we see that Haldane did, indeed, have the closest arrangement to the true picture (a final picture which allowed for, amongst other things, the evolution of even complex structures like magnets and "wheel-like" bacterial flagella). Further, he all but admits an ignorance of the actual mechanism, stating just prior to the text quoted by Socrates:
I have deliberately left it vague how evolution occurs. Provided the existing species are descended from very different ones, evolution is a fact. Further still, he admits not even being an expert in the realm of zoological: Unfortunately, I am as much a mathematician as a biologist, and a better qualified man could have answered better... The literature of zoology is vast, and a good zoologist could have given better [macroscopic] examples than I.

Notice that not only does he avoid using microscopic evidence to further solidify the case for evolution, he seems to be completely ignorant that such evidence might even exist, defering additional evidence to the realm of zoology and, more specifically, macroscopic structures.

[Socratism]

The cost of substitution is that after the environment shift required for the model, the only viable alleles are rare in the population, thus the population experiences high mortality.

I have never heard this definition of the cost of substitution. Where did you get this from?

This is different than a beneficial allele being produced by mutation with out an environmental shift.

What does this have to do with the cost of substitution?

In that instance there is no cost to substitution since the common form, although less fit, is still viable.

It sounds quite unlikely that there could ever be "no cost of substitution".

I realize that the "cost of substitution" is frequently misunderstood by both creationists and evolutionists, but I would have thought that a geneticist like yourself would have been able to do a better job of explaining it.

It sounded more to me that instead of explaining it you were attempting instead to "explain it away".

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 11:39 AM
Socratism:

I have never heard this definition of the cost of substitution. Where did you get this from?

Haldane's model

What does this have to do with the cost of substitution?

Nothing, that's the point. Haldane's model only applies to rare alleles that become favored only after an environmental shift makes the common alleles inviable.

It sounds quite unlikely that there could ever be "no cost of substitution".

The "cost of substitution" is only relevant to Haldane's model. It occurs when an environmental shift causes the net reproductive rate of the population to dramatically decrease. This is because viable alleles, in the model, are rare, and common alleles are inviable. Thus at the beginning of the new selection pressures, the majority of the population will reproduce very little (if at all), and only a minority of the population will successfully reproduce. The "cost of substitution" is simply the conclusion that a population, in this model, would have to ride out this period of low (or even negative) net reproduction until the viable alleles become common, during which time the entire population could go extinct because of demographic stochasticity or other effects of the bottleneck.

However, if a mutation doesn't fit the assumptions of Haldane's model, then there does not have to be a cost of substitution.

[tgamble]

Remember, Socrates thinks a creation myth written down thousands of years ago by ignorant people is more reliable than the research and evidence produced by the entire scientific community for the last 140 years! LOL!

Weasels, ReMine, and Haldane's Dilemma
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep99.html

[Socrates]

TGamble wrote:
Remember, Socrates thinks a creation myth written down thousands of years ago by ignorant people is more reliable than the research and evidence produced by the entire scientific community for the last 140 years! LOL!Remember, tgamble is a chronological snob who thinks ancient people were stupid and is too blinkered to see past the current paradigm, and is too bigoted to consider that there just might be realities beyond matter.

[Socrates]

Snowball wrote:
Bubba:

Do you not find it at all disconcerting that you are arguing with all the atheists?? As a "Christian" I would imagine that this would throw up a red flag for you. First, it never seems to bother these compromisers that they unequally yoke with atheists to attack Biblical Christians. Just look at Glenn Moron, who spits venom against creationists and gets a kick out of overt atheists using his work against Christians.

Second, since Bubba has said he supports Spong, it's questionable that he's a Christian anyway.

[Bald Ape]

<whigne>

Socrates,

I think it's fair to say that both you and I would consider Glenn Moron's theology to be grossly in error. Are you and I yoked? Are you a God-Hater?

</whigne>

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:07 AM
Socrates:
Remember, tgamble is a chronological snob who thinks ancient people were stupid and is too blinkered to see past the current paradigm, and is too bigoted to consider that there just might be realities beyond matter.

Still making false and unsupported claims? Rather typical of creationists! I never said ancient people were stupid, but they were ignorant. I never even said anything about realities beyond matter. Like many creationists, Socrates equates evolution with atheism.

Do you have any evidence for realities beyond matter? I doubt it!

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:12 AM
Socrates:
First, it never seems to bother these compromisers that they unequally yoke with atheists to attack Biblical Christians.

They aren't attacking biblical Christians. They're attacking the false claims of creationists. They do this because they would rather believe the truth than cling to a lie.

Just look at Glenn Moron, who spits venom against creationists and gets a kick out of overt atheists using his work against Christians.

Actually, he spits facts against creationists. How would you know how he feels about others useing his work? You're just bitter that a former YEC found out the truth through field work. YEC is pure garbage!

[Socrates]

Socrates:
First, it never seems to bother these compromisers that they unequally yoke with atheists to attack Biblical Christians.

tgamble:
They aren't attacking biblical Christians. Of course they are. And if attacking the Bible as gamble does isn't attacking Biblical Christians, I don't know what to call it.

They're attacking the false claims of creationists.We have only your word for it that they are false, and you know naught of what you spruik.
They do this because they would rather believe the truth than cling to a lie.they do so because they care more about what the word thinks than being faithful to God's Word.

Soc:
Just look at Glenn Moron, who spits venom against creationists and gets a kick out of overt atheists using his work against Christians.

TG:
Actually, he spits facts against creationists. How would you know how he feels about others useing his work? You're just bitter that a former YEC found out the truth through field work. YEC is pure garbage!Moron was NEVER a Biblical creationist, although he had some young-Earth creationist affiliations at one time. And he is too unqualifed to know a fact if it bit him. But that doesn't stop him from acting as if he's an expert on everything. And he seems positively gleeful that overt God-haters (such as you) love his work. But I repeat, he merely used dubious circumstantial evidence to overturn the eye-witness account of Genesis, and now unqually yokes with enemies of the Bible against Christians. So he deserves as much contempt as Benedict Arnold.

The Alopecic Simian wrote:
I think it's fair to say that both you and I would consider Glenn Moron's theology to be grossly in error. Are you and I yoked? Are you a God-Hater?I wouldn't let you post what I write on your website, so there is no unequal yoking. The fact that you agree with me is not per se enough -- even atheists can be right sometimes -- a stopped clock is right twice a day!

And it's "whinge" not "whigne", and it's common in Australia and New Zealand, it came from Scotland and northern England. and it is a rough synonym for whine, although Australians use both and they have different nuances.

Oh, and thanx for tracking down the quote -- see, it wasn't diffucult. And it vindicated the fact that I did NOT quote him out of context. Now how about an evolutionary explanation of the ATP synthase motor?

[Bald Ape]

<blather>


The Alopecic Simian wrote:


Are you trying to imply that I'm some sort of hairless primate? Thought you didn't believe in that kind of stuff. (j/k)


I wouldn't let you post what I write on your website, so there is no unequal yoking. The fact that you agree with me is not per se enough -- even atheists can be right sometimes -- a stopped clock is right twice a day!

I think you have an odd way of defining certain phrases, like "unequally yoked". Regardless, I'm not convinced that we are "unyoked", and will consider us to be playing for the same team until shown otherwise. By the way, and with all seriousness, do you hate Leprechauns as much as I do?
</blather>
<yak>

<snip whinge lesson>
Quite informative, thanks! :thumb: (Doggoned inadequacies of textual communication force me to write: this was not intended to be sarcastic, I really did appreciate the insight into Australian dialect).

Oh, and thanx for tracking down the quote -- see, it wasn't diffucult.
Well, no and yes. It did cost me about $20, including shipping and handling. On the other hand, it has been an intriguing read, and I'm quite glad to have had the chance to read through it.


And it vindicated the fact that I did NOT quote him out of context.
You didn't quote out of context per se, although I think we can all agree that it'd be a logical impossibility for a person with little knowledge of the actual mechanisms of evolution to accurately postulate the true limitations of the process. Kind of like IDist's, ignorant of the true potential of evolution, postulating that there are things that are just "golly gee so darned complex" that they just can't IMAGINE how they evolved, and are thus beyond the scope of evolution.
</yak>
<grunt>

Now how about an evolutionary explanation of the ATP synthase motor?
Speak of the devil :smile:.

The ATP synthase motor is the result of the accumulation of trillions of very subtle enhancing variations to an unknown, simplistic, and largely inefficient process which just barely aided an organism more than hindered it in terms of energy management. The variations were only "discovered" through a trial-and-error brute-force calculation: trillions of organisms in trillions of populations over several billion years doing real-world experiments with qunitillions of variations of the original process, the original process plus one slight enhancement, the original process plus two slight enhancements, etc., etc., etc. Would you honestly expect this process to result in something simple, or even comprehensible to an IDist?
</grunt>
<screech>
Naturally, I don't have a video tape of the last 4 billion years that would allow us to sit back with some popcorn (and a FF button :smile:) and watch the evolutionary development of the motor. I do not have trillions of frozen, well-preserved samples collected over the past billion years that would allow us to compare each generation to the prior one, and piece the puzzle together. I do not have the lab space or time to simulate millions of populations changing over billions of years (nor can I know exactly what the starting point was, nor can I know the exact conditions I should attempt to simulate). I do not have the computing power to simulate a near-real-world environment for even a single virtual organism, much less a population of virtual organisms, and much less a population of virtual organisms in a near-real-world environment subjected to trillions of reproductive life cycles (and, as above, I wouldn't even know what to simulate).

Your unequally yoked friend,

-Bald Ape
</screech>

[Socratism]

Then why do you believe such an obvious lie?

(Well, the perfect original couple fell for an equally incredible one, didn't they?)

[Bald Ape]

Socratism,

Your question "Then why..." is phrased as though it is in response to a specific comment, but you've failed to mention which comment this is, and your question is too ambiguous to really even know what you're talking about, much less who you're talking to. Could you please clarify?

[Socratism]

Bald,

Sorry I missed responding to your question.

The ATP synthase motor is the result of the accumulation of trillions of very subtle enhancing variations to an unknown, simplistic, and largely inefficient process which just barely aided an organism more than hindered it in terms of energy management. The variations were only "discovered" through a trial-and-error brute-force calculation: trillions of organisms in trillions of populations over several billion years doing real-world experiments with qunitillions of variations of the original process, the original process plus one slight enhancement, the original process plus two slight enhancements, etc., etc., etc. Would you honestly expect this process to result in something simple, or even comprehensible to an IDist?
</grunt>
<screech>
Naturally, I don't have a video tape of the last 4 billion years that would allow us to sit back with some popcorn (and a FF button ) and watch the evolutionary development of the motor. I do not have trillions of frozen, well-preserved samples collected over the past billion years that would allow us to compare each generation to the prior one, and piece the puzzle together. I do not have the lab space or time to simulate millions of populations changing over billions of years (nor can I know exactly what the starting point was, nor can I know the exact conditions I should attempt to simulate). I do not have the computing power to simulate a near-real-world environment for even a single virtual organism, much less a population of virtual organisms, and much less a population of virtual organisms in a near-real-world environment subjected to trillions of reproductive life cycles (and, as above, I wouldn't even know what to simulate).

My question was why do you believe the obvious evolutionary lie that everything is descended from a primitive replicating molecule when there is essentially no evidence or even a detailed scenario of how this could possibly occur "naturally"?

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44683#post44683)
Socratism:

Bald,

Sorry I missed responding to your question.
My question was why do you believe the obvious evolutionary lie that everything is descended from a primitive replicating molecule when there is essentially no evidence or even a detailed scenario of how this could possibly occur &quot;naturally&quot;?


There is, in fact, loads of evidence to support common descent. You simply choose to ignore it.

[markg]

Quote from IS EVOLUTION A MYTH?

Socrates began this thread with a quote from Haldane which caused some discussion.

AS I promised to Celsus (Joel) some time ago here is the quote from Haldane in context (from a scan of pages 90-91 of the book "Is Evolution a Myth?"). I haven't seen Joel active on the Theologyweb forum for some time but I figure that others would be interested in reading it. I will forward a copy via private message to Joel.


===============================================
(Haldane J.B.S., "Haldane to Dewar," in "Is Evolution A Myth?," C.A. Watts & Co. Ltd/The Paternoster Press: London, 1949 , p.90-91)

LETTER XII : HALDANE TO DEWAR


… In very favourable ones, like the oyster, Gryphaea, we can find
series of populations, one above the other in the same beds, each overlapping the last in its range of variation. Yet the highest and lowest differ much more than many modern species.

The fossil record is, however, incomplete, as is shown by the great number of new genera described annually (e.g., twenty-five new fossil mammalian genera in the Zoological Record for 1943). Some of these are, or may be, ancestors of known forms. Others have left no descendants. My " faith " in the existence of undescribed fossils is like my faith in the existence of undescribed chemical compounds. People keep on finding more of both.

I have deliberately left it vague how evolution occurs. Provided the existing species are descended from very different ones, evolution is a fact. I am more of a Darwinist than some contemporaries. But it is irrelevant whether I am right or wrong.

There are, of course, difficulties in the theory of evolution. You raised a selection of the most serious ones. I agree with you that some processes, such as the evolution of the mammalian ear bones, probably occurred by sudden leaps. In most cases, for example those of hanging nests and aquatic spiders, we can find intermediates. It is never, however, necessary to postulate a leap which would imply prevision by a designer. That is why one finds no example of various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect. Whereas structures half-way between a leg and a wing, for example the patagium of "flying squirrels," are useful.

Unfortunately I am as much a mathematician as a biologist, and a better qualified man could have answered you better. I have to thank Mr. K. A. Kermack for helping me in a number of cases. The literature of zoology is vast, and a good zoologist could have given better examples than I. For example, the main difficulty in answering your question about nascent organs is the difficulty of being sure whether a given organ is in process of development or retrogression. As soft parts are rarely fossilised it is hard to be sure. But I ought to have answered you largely with the development of mammalian teeth.

A few specimens of Mesohippus had a small crest on the upper cheek teeth. All specimens of their successors, Mesohippus and Miohippus, had one. As horse-teeth grew larger this evolved to a large element in the tooth-pattern of modern horses called the crotchet. On the other hand, a specimen of Phenacodus was found with an extra tooth cusp, and this was not developed in its descendants or other relatives. So the crest in Mesohippus was a nascent organ; the cusp in Phenacodus was not. You need the gift of prophecy to say whether any particular small organ in a living animal is nascent or not.

Frankly I believe that most of your difficulties would be resolved if you were prepared to examine the evidence at first hand, or at least from original publications rather than books which inevitably concentrate on striking cases. It would be rather dull to list all the arthropods which produce sticky substances capable of being drawn into threads. But such a list would convince you that the spiders' spinnerets could have evolved by almost countless small steps.

I can only say, in conclusion, that our correspondence, by forcing me to read far more than I have quoted, and to examine fossils, has strengthened me in the conclusion that the theory of evolution is the only one which will account for the known facts, and that from year to year it is more solidly established. This is because, as our knowledge develops, the number of observations which, if made, could disprove it, also increases…

(Haldane J.B.S., "Haldane to Dewar," in "Is Evolution A Myth?," C.A.
Watts & Co. Ltd/The Paternoster Press: London, 1949 , p.90-91)
==============================================

Leaving aside other issues in the quote, Haldane accepts the principle of irreducible complexity and gives an example of "the wheel ... which would be useless till fairly perfect". The applicability of this to the bacterial flagellum's rotary motor is obvious.



Mark

[QED]

Leaving aside other issues in the quote, Haldane accepts the principle of irreducible complexity and gives an example of "the wheel ... which would be useless till fairly perfect". The applicability of this to the bacterial flagellum's rotary motor is obvious.

I think we are talking apples and oranges. It would be difficult (but maybe not impossible, as Haldane seemed to think) to evolve a wheel (as a means of motility), which must be more or less a perfect disc before it will turn and produce motion. Clearly this would be an evolutionary problem for terrestrial organisms, and we are discussing a wheel very literally like a car wheel.

The motor of the prokaryotic flagellum, however, need only cause a filament to whip about to achieve some sort of mobility, and could function in this way long before developing a smooth circular motion.

It could function otherwise as a type III secretory apparatus.

So, where a wheel might be a real challenge, a bacterial flagellum need not have been "useless until fairly perfect." It doesn't meet Haldane's criteria.

I'm not very familiar with the use of magnetism in navigation that Socrates suggested might have also fallen under Haldane's criteria, so I can't comment on that.

Suffice it to say, that Haldane may have had unrealistically low expectations of what natural selection can accomplish, and and therefore proposed a poor (or needlessly vague, at least) falsification criterion.

[tgamble]

03-07-2003 @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=29206#post29206)
Socrates:

BTW, AiG advises against using the Darwin eye quote here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp).

good for them. One wonders why they DID use it in the revised quote book despite their claims that a lot of care went into making sure the quotes were accurate.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part5.html

btw, the revised quote book is still being sold by creationists. What a shock.

But to these rabid misotheists, creationists are damned even when they correct errors or own up to them.

Hardly. It would be nice if you owned up to the rest of the errors. But then, you'd have nothing left!

and took 40 years to expose the amateurish Piltdown hoax.

And creationists took 40 years to stop using the moon dust argument. Oh wait, that's still being used!

Gish admitted there were errors in a pamphet he was selling at the debate where he admitted it. took ICR years to stop selling it!

Creationists slandered Donald Johanson claiming he found Lucy's knee joint far from the rest of her. The claim was false but it took years for creationists to stop useing it.

[tgamble]

We have only your word for it that they are false, and you know naught of what you spruik.

Actually, we have centeries of scientific research and the word of the entire scientific community. It's clearly you who don't know what you're talking about.

they do so because they care more about what the word thinks than being faithful to God's Word.

No, they do so because they are unwilling to lie to themselves and deny reality.

Moron was NEVER a Biblical creationist, although he had some young-Earth creationist affiliations at one time.

Simply not true. Morton was a YEC for years writing articles for ICR. He abandoned YEC dogma because his work in the field showed that YECism was false.

But that doesn't stop him from acting as if he's an expert on everything.

He doesn't act like he's an expert on everything at all.

Unlike Sarfati and other creationists.

But I repeat, he merely used dubious circumstantial evidence to overturn the eye-witness account of Genesis,

The accounts (there are two creation stories, not one) in Genesis are not eyewitness accounts. They are derived from the older babylonian myth.

[biter]

03-05-2003 @ 02:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=28014#post28014)
Socratism:

Was that the same Haldane that was so puzzled regarding how ape-like creatures could mutate into humans in such a short period of time, the so-called Haldane's Dilemma?

I realize that this ais a relatively old thread, but while snooping around the forum, I came across this.

Haldane's papers have been an interest of mine for some time. I have read many creationist treatments of them, including mention of them at AiG.

But, no, Haldane was not "puzzled" by any such thing. Haldane's "dilemma" is not really a dilemma at all. In fact, it is quite likely that his formulations are largely inapplicable, for, among other reasons, his calculations required a constant population size. Real populations rarely if ever have a 'constant' size. This little fact is overlooked.

In addition, even if Haldane's numbers and applications of his numbers were without error, there is still no dilemma, for it is unknown at this time how many mutations were necessary to produe the phenotypic differences that became hallmarks of the lineage leading to modern humans. Essays and books claiming that there is "not enough time" and "too few mutations" are merely exercises in question begging and sophistry.

It is a poor, unsubstantiated and largely fallacious argument premised almost exclusively on what has been referred to as "personal incredulity" - i.e., 'I can't imagine/accept how this happened, so it could not have'.

[Lobstrosity]

Hahaha, whooo-wheee, this thread is rich. I like how Socrates' quote in the opening post isn't even a complete sentence. It's a sentence fragment. The main verb of the sentence has been excluded for some mind-boggling reason--maybe because it actually demonstrates what the sentence was trying to say? Let me hypothesize some things the sentence could have said:

"It would be rare to find various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect."
"Naive creationists laughably assert that we should not find various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect."
"The stochastic nature of genetic drift along fitness contours is made evident by various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect."
Isn't it interesting that Socrates is simply willing to assume that the sentence was truly completed as follows:

"It would be impossible to find various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect."

For shame, Socrates...your opening post was very dishonest of you. Although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt--perhaps you honestly didn't notice that what you were posting was a mere sentence fragment.

[QED]

For shame, Socrates...your opening post was very dishonest of you. Although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt--perhaps you honestly didn't notice that what you were posting was a mere sentence fragment.

Socrates claims to have read the quote in full before posting it. Others have checked the context, and his representation is accurate.

[Lobstrosity]

In the future, then, perhaps he should actually post the quote in full. A sentence fragment that doesn't even include a subject is fairly meaningless and can be interpreted quite a few different ways (as I demonstrated above).

Similarly, in the future perhaps I should actually read entire threads, even if they are long, drawn-out, and rather uninteresting, before posting. :teeth: