Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics

Bigfoot wrote:
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.

That is not my idea. That is Haldane's result. It is not "misleading"
to convey Haldane's result to the general public.

If your concept of the cost requires twice as many
generations for two substitutions then maybe ....

You misunderstand my cost concept. You are placing the cart before the
horse, when my cost concept is quite direct. Every evolutionary
scenario requires some amount of reproduction rate -- called a "cost".
So we calculate it. You assumed that my cost concept requires a
specific type of outcome. It doesn't. Rather, calculate the cost --
then that's the cost. What you see, is what you get. If a mistake was
made, then re-do the calculation. Then what you see, is what you get.
If the calculation leads to a particular result, then fine -- if it
doesn't, then fine. The calculation leads where it leads.

... 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 ...

Ah, "no need to publish". That has been the evolutionists' posture
about Haldane's Dilemma for decades -- ALL the confusions and false
"solutions" were given a free pass and allowed to stand -- "no need to
publish" corrections or clarifications. "No need to publish" the
(unrealistic) details of your simulation.

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.

You misrepresent me, that I "don't like" Malcom's simulation. I didn't
say that. Rather, I said Haldane's model was wildly unrealistic IN
FAVOR of evolution, and Malcom's model is EVEN MORE wildly unrealistic
IN FAVOR of evolution. I'd say the same for your simulation.

The limit is for a single locus not multiple freely
recombining loci which act additively.

You misunderstand Haldane's model. Haldane's model includes what you
ask for -- "multiple freely recombining loci which act additively."
That's already taken into account in the Haldane limit -- one
substitution per 300 generations.

By the way, can you defend Felsenstein's cost concept as a solution to
Haldane's Dilemma? Can you defend Felsenstein's attack on my cost
concept? See here: http://SaintPaulScience.com/Felsenstein_comments.htm

certainly no one has hidden anything from
the general public.

Evolutionists never revealed Haldane's Dilemma to the general public.
That is a scandal, of many scandals, about Haldane's Dilemma.

-- Walter ReMine
Haldane's Dilemma
http://SaintPaulScience.com/Haldane.htm


.