Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- From: Tim Tyler <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:48:14 -0400 (EDT)
Walter ReMine <science@xxxxxxxx> wrote or quoted:
> You have it backwards. Evolutionists claimed they solved Haldane's
> Dilemma decades ago. Yet under my prodding, evolutionists here at sbe
> now acknowledge their cost literature is profoundly confused -- no one
> here has disputed that. How can Haldane's Dilemma be "solved" when its
> central concept (the cost of substitution) remains profoundly confused?
> Evolutionists are faced with a contradiction.
AFAICS, the idea goes something like:
* The number of mutations that reached fixation in the period in
question is not as great as was once though;
* The limits on even the speed of "primitive" evoultion - i.e. evolution
ignoring complications where brains can influence genes - such as
genetic engineering, sexual selection and the Baldwin effect - are not
as low as Haldane suggested;
* Therefore there's nothing to have much of a dilemma over here.
This argument doesn't depend strongly on the details of any cost
metric - or their units - *provided* the costs are not so astronomically
high that there's no way they could have been afforded - and there's
no sign of that being the case.
The lack of dependency of the details of any particular cost metric
is a good thing - since its rather easy to invent a dozen
different cost metrics, and not have any particularly good case
for one being somehow the best.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.
.
- References:
- Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- From: Walter ReMine
- Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Prev by Date: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
- Next by Date: Re: Responses to assorted posts
- Previous by thread: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Next by thread: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
