Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics

Walter ReMine wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
Though I suspect Walter is wrong both
about the limit (Walter makes it too low) ...

That misrepresents me. The "limit" is not mine, and I did not "make"
the limit (much less make it "too low"). The limit comes from Haldane,
and evolutionists never revealed its meaning to the general public. I
did.

I am sorry Walter this is one your most ridiculous statements. You have
only added more confusion to the issue and certainly no one has hidden
anything from the general public. The number of generations to the
fixation of a beneficial allele at a single locus is about 300
generations with a selection coefficient of .01 which you report
correctly. However, you have always misled the public into the idea
that two substitutions in a sexual species which act additively with
respect to fitness would require twice as long. This is false. It only
takes about 5-10% more generations for 2 substitutions than for 1. If
your concept of the cost requires twice as many generations for two
substiutions then maybe there is something wrong with the 'Remine Cost'
concept.

The 'Remine Cost' is the needless distraction and confusion factor
because it hides the fact multiple substitutions can go simultaneously
with only a slight increase in the number of generations required in
sexual species. This can be clearly shown with computer simulations and
has been. I have done it before but there was no need to publish
because A) you will claim it wrong because it came from an evolutionist
and B) Nunney has published similar simulations dealing directly with
Haldane's dilemma. showing that multiple substitutions in a sexual
species is different and clearly much larger numbers of substitutions
can occur than 1667. And of course now Malcom has taken his time to
write some simulations too to show a similar effect. But you don't like
his simulations either. Don't reply with your arm chair theorizing. Do
the simulations yourself or get someone to help you. If you can show
the effect then report it if not then atop perpetuating the 'Remine
Myth'.

The real limiting factor from these type of simulations shows the real
limiting factor is not Walters 'cost' but rather the rate of beneficial
mutations in populations.

You cannot blame the "limit" onto me.

Its time you stop making the same ridiculous claims over and over
again. The limit is for a single locus not multiple freely recombining
loci which act additively. You have milsed trhe public and continue to
obfuscate the issue. Of course if you actually did the simulations then
you might figure out Remine's Limit is Red Herring and not the stuff of
scientific revolutions.

Cheers, Allan


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Suggested addition to TO archive
    ... Gee, sorry Walter. ... What makes you think that you are actually talking to Walter Remine? ... Post and run is rude since many of the replies support his book. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Suggested addition to TO archive
    ... ReMine is conceding that NS creates information. ... Gee, sorry Walter. ... natural selection can fix genetic information, ... informational aspect were made more explicit. ...
    (talk.origins)