Evolution of Man (page 5)

hooberus

Here is ReMine's homepage

http://www1.minn.net/~science/index.html

Click on the top subsection: "Haldane's Dilemma" and scroll down He has a response to the "Talk Origins" arcticle (as well as the linked to Robert Williams arcticle).

AlmostAtheist

Remine's argument did not deal with the amount of difference between humans and modern apes, but instead with the amount of beneficial mutation substitutions possible (according to the standard evolution model) in the lineage leading directly to man from an ancient ape ancestor 10 million years ago.

If I understand it correctly (one of the bigger if's you'll likely encounter today) one problem with this is there is no way to determine the genetic makeup of our "ancient ape ancestor". Modern ape is a product of the same evolutionary forces that modern man is, so we can't just compare modern man and modern ape. But there's no ancient man we can point to and say "that's the one, compare to that." This is a problem for determining what limits Haldane's Dilemma can place on beneficial mutation rate and its spread to the population. Here's a page that seems to explain some of the reasons Haldane's Dilemma is at least not a huge hole in evolution: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html It doesn't explain the problem away, but it does show why the problem is less of a problem and more of a natural constraint that doesn't create a true dilemma. However it also points out that until the human/ape genomes are fully mapped and compared, there's no proof that the dilemma doesn't exist. It supposes that if the mapping and comparison reveal such huge gulfs that the limit is exceeded, it would be a difficult thing to explain. Thanks for pointing these things out, Hoob. Very interesting. I'm trying to learn as I go. I find that I encounter the same terms and points in various places and it's starting to gel. Dave

Midget-Sasquatch

I have a few questions on Haldane's model for calculating the "cost of natural selection" and the specific interpretations/ number crunching being bandied about by creationists to refute evolution.

What is the exact nature of the units called beneficial substitutions in Haldane's model? Aren't they alleles (as usual in population genetics models)? Or did he specify nucleotide subtitutions (point mutations)?

I ask that because its one thing to say the model's theoretical limit is one allele substition per 300 generations, and quite another to say 1 point mutation every 300 generations. You can have a number of nucleotide differences happen at one mutation event (e.g. transposition or inversions), and change one allele or more. Mind you thats not extremely common. Point mutations are the most common type of mutations as I uderstand it, but they're mostly neutral. They have no effect on the resulting phenotype - meaning nothing for selection to work on. Neutral mutations as I understand it are fixed mostly by non-selective factors. So can creationists legitimately say the theoretical limit is 1,667 nucleotide substitutions, and so question the large nucleotide difference between modern humans and modern apes? Or is Haldane talking about alleles (which would make more sense to me)?

LMS-Chef

Evolution has never made sence to me. I have really thought about it. I can see adaptation in a lot of places but as far as evolution goes there is not enough proof. I think it all boils down to one thing. Does a person believe in God creating everything or not, which i do, then eveolution is not even needed. I am sure the Bible doesn't tell us every little detail of what went on. Why are there no wolly mamothes anymore. Why are there certain species only found in parts of the world. I could see the flood killing out many different animals. maybe where the mammothes were there were no humans so Noah didn't get any in the ark. A lot of the dino skeletons are found in the US and Europe, maybe there were none where Noah was or people for that matter so they didn't make it either. What about the Galapogos Islands. Creatures found there and no place else in the world. HOw did that happen. I don't think evolution played a part in any of these things. So many unanswered questions.

tetrapod.sapien

:So many unanswered questions.

to you, yes. however, the answers are out there. but you have to educate yourself and read to find them. if you are not willing to do that, then long explainations on this board are not really going to answer the questions for you, are they?

AlmostAtheist

Evolution has never made sence to me.

It didn't to me either, until I actually looked into it. My only education on evolution came from reading anti-evolution material from the Watchtower. That's like trying to decide if you should buy a Chevy by visiting various Chevy dealers and asking what they think of the other auto manufacturers.

After I heard the other side (read an evolution book, began researching on the internet) I became convinced that evolution not only did occur, but it must occur. The very nature of things demands it, just as the nature of water and gravity are such that water runs downhill. There's no magic behind it, that's just what it does.

Like TS said, look into it for yourself. I read Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker. If you don't have any other book in mind, I can recommend it. After you've heard both sides, then decide.

Dave

LMS-Chef

So I should look into a pro evolution book for answers on evolution? That is just as bad as learning about it from the jw's. Or is it not a pro evolution book?

peacefulpete

It is an honest portrayal of what evolution is. Creationists are notorious liers. Climbing Mount Improbable is even better at explaning the ins and outs in layman's terms.

doogie

i've found that reading "pro" material from both sides of the argument and then comparing your findings is far more productive than comparing the negative slant that each portrays of the other.

why not check out each camp's best arguments and then see which you feel rings truer?

hooberus

If I understand it correctly (one of the bigger if's you'll likely encounter today) one problem with this is there is no way to determine the genetic makeup of our "ancient ape ancestor". Modern ape is a product of the same evolutionary forces that modern man is, so we can't just compare modern man and modern ape. But there's no ancient man we can point to and say "that's the one, compare to that." This is a problem for determining what limits Haldane's Dilemma can place on beneficial mutation rate and its spread to the population.

Haldane's limit is not determined (or limited by) by comparisons of genetic distances, but instead is based on population genetics calculations. It simply sets an (upper) limit for the amount of selective (beneficial) substitutions possible within a given amount of time.

Here's a page that seems to explain some of the reasons Haldane's Dilemma is at least not a huge hole in evolution: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html It doesn't explain the problem away, but it does show why the problem is less of a problem and more of a natural constraint that doesn't create a true dilemma. However it also points out that until the human/ape genomes are fully mapped and compared, there's no proof that the dilemma doesn't exist. It supposes that if the mapping and comparison reveal such huge gulfs that the limit is exceeded, it would be a difficult thing to explain.

This is evolutionist Robert Williams "current" Haldane page.* (This has been responsed to by creationist Fred Williams here: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm). (I think that evolutionist Robert Williams is still not accurately representing ReMine.) Anyway his first line of defense on his "current" arcticle is:

There is basically a very simple solution to Haldane's Dilemma as presented by ReMine: 1 (beneficial) gene substitution per 300 generations could be enough to account for human evolution. Although 1,667 substitutions may seem like a low number, it may be sufficient to explain the differences between humans and their ancestors of 10 million years ago.

I was shocked when I read that statement. And (to me anyway) it is another demonstration of the fact that evolution (as practiced by many of it proponets) has become virtually unfalsifiable - despite their claim at other times that it is: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html "There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example: . . . a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating"**

Thanks for pointing these things out, Hoob. Very interesting. I'm trying to learn as I go. I find that I encounter the same terms and points in various places and it's starting to gel. Dave

Thank you also for the cordial discussion. *The original version of his page -http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane3.html (which grossly misrepresented ReMine with statements such as "ReMine assumes that all the differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to selection") was the source for the (still) errant Talk Origins "Haldane's Dilemma" arcticle (see Remine's site). **While Haldane's limit is not in itself a limiting mechanism, it can limit the calculated possible amount of accumulation of beneficial mutations.

Evolution of Man

Share this