Re: Haldane's Dilemma

From: IThinkSo (science_at_minn.net)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:38:31 -0500 (EST)

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

> ... I agree with you that Haldane's
> Dilemma deserves more attention.

Thanks. Now tell journal editors that Haldane's Dilemma deserves more
attention.

================

>> .... For example, my paper refutes the very
>> common notion (advanced by Joe Felsenstein and
>> many others) that the cost of substitution is
>> "zero," and various notions that the "environment"
>> or "soft selection" reduce the cost of substitution
>> and solve Haldane's Dilemma. You can easily
>> verify that those are still commonly promoted
>> as "solutions" to Haldane's Dilemma. To put it
>> mildly, my paper runs contrary to the prevailing
>> winds.
>
> I also am somewhat skeptical of Felsenstein's
> logic on this point. I would be happy to see
> a more thoughtful review of it than is possible
> within an NG.

The notion that beneficial substitutions have "no cost" (either
inherently or due to 'soft selection') is very common today. (For
example, see the talk.origins website, or even the most commonly
recommended evolutionary websites.)

Joe Felsenstein's argument -- that the cost of beneficial substitution
is inherently zero -- was published in 1971 & 1972, and he still
presses it forward. His notion has many adherents, even here on
sci.bio.evolution. His argument has never been explicitly challenged
in the literature. Yet it implicitly contradicts other evolutionists:
Either the cost of substitution is zero, or it isn't. I spent many
months on this newsgroup trying to get evolutionists to resolve the
matter. They still haven't resolved it. This fundamental issue
remains chronically confused.

It is not enough to merely be "somewhat skeptical" of 'zero-cost'.
"Being skeptical" is not enough, when such obvious contradictions went
unchallenged in the literature since 1971. At some point evolutionists
must actually PURSUE a clarification, and welcome it when it comes.

My paper provides clarification. Warren Ewens and James Crow,
acknowledged my paper is correct, but rejected it on the grounds that a
clarification is not needed. They are profoundly mistaken. For more
details on this interesting story, see
http://www1.minn.net/~science/a_tale_of_peer-review.htm

================

> I, for one, am more interested in your model
> - your way of looking at the problem in such
> a way that Felsenstein's error is made manifest.

Thanks. Many of the so-called "solutions" to Haldane's Dilemma are
seen as false, as soon as the cost concept is clarified. My paper does
that.

================

> Nevertheless, ... the fat lady has not yet
> completed her aria. So, this is not yet a
> story of how the "evolutionary" process of
> peer review has failed, it is a story of
> how the process is continuing.

This is not merely one instance of how 'peer-review' failed. Rather,
it is nearly fifty years of professional negligence concerning one of
the most central problems in evolutionary genetics. That cannot be
brushed aside so easily. See
http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm#brief_history_of_Haldanes_Dilemma

================

> Though the severity of the [Haldane's Dilemma]
> problem depends upon how many beneficial
> mutations are believed to be "needed".
> I personally doubt that it provides any
> challenge at all to the heart of Darwin's
> theory

See http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm#a_problem
-- Walter ReMine

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... Actually there are a great deal of observational evidence provided. ... he was reporting a fact already known by scientists of the time. ... Because they are derived from a common ancestory. ... Since "evolutionists" understand and accept common ancestory, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... Actually there are a great deal of observational evidence provided. ... he was reporting a fact already known by scientists of the time. ... Because they are derived from a common ancestory. ... Since "evolutionists" understand and accept common ancestory, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic proof for the origin of man
    ... Species similarities and their different interpretations ... Present-day humans and chimpanzees, ... inherited from a common ancestor; that is, ... Evolutionists aren't consistent in their claims: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hershey ends up proving Admans point
    ... a common ancestor. ... My main point is that John Harshman does not understand ... Common Descent is what we observe as the result of evolution. ... And the handful of examples evolutionists put forward ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic proof for the origin of man
    ... inherited from a common ancestor; that is, ... Evolutionists aren't consistent in their claims: ... hierarchy in the same sense that we observe protons in a bubble chamber. ... to be known and understood to make this "nested hierarchy" anything ...
    (talk.origins)