Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
... See the thread entitled "Intensity of selection ..."

Yes, I'm following your thread with interest. I've seen various
approaches to calculating the rate of evolution, such as using Fisher's
"Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection". Those attempts have been
flawed, in my view, (as discussed in my book). But your approach seems
refreshingly new, perhaps worth publishing as a paper -- though I'm
still noodle-ing about it.

Yet it displays a serious problem -- Haldane's
Dilemma. Sved's invocation of truncation is EVEN
MORE wildly unrealistic in favor of evolution -- and
is such an implausible model that the only time
evolutionists' mention it is when they're trying to
brush aside Haldane's Dilemma as "solved".
Otherwise they set aside Sved's paper entirely.
Would it be harsh to call such behavior 'two-faced'?

I'll treat this as a serious question, though I realize
it was meant rhetorically. Yes, I think it would be
two harsh. Unless you wish to call the bulk of mankind
two-faced. It is part of the human psyche to remember
and repeat confirming evidence and to discount and
forget contrary evidence. Creationists do it, and
evolutionists do it too. They do it because they are
all members of the species ironically named H. sapiens.

I understand. It's one thing to make mistakes and oversights, everyone
does that from time to time. But it's quite another matter when an
ENTIRE FIELD, with many practitioners, ALLOWS those to continue for
decades. And it's worse still when they've been PUBLICLY TOLD about it
(by people such as myself) for well over a decade.

For example. Either evolutionists embrace Sved's model, or they don't.
If they don't, then they obviously cannot claim it as a realistic
"solution" to Haldane's Dilemma.

...[so-and-so] is a creationist, and hence stupid by
definition, and this confirms it!".

I understand. Yes, I've seen that tactic a lot. In fact, EVERY TIME I
come here, someone (such as the moderator Josh Hayes, and several
others) pile-on immediately in some attempt to smear me -- rather than
solve Haldane's Dilemma. They say things like, "not everything that
[ReMine] does is intellectually dishonest", and so forth -- terms of
speech not generally used here on other occasions. Is this language
obligatory when dealing with outsiders? Is that the lengths
evolutionists must go to evade Haldane's Dilemma?

-- Walter ReMine
The Biotic Message
http://SaintPaulScience.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do ... Clarifying what Darwin ... phrase that should be deeply embarrasing to Evolutionists stands out ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Communist deniers
    ... direct link between Darwin and communism is less well understood. ... the shocking tendency of some evolutionists to attempt to disavow the ... about the danger that we face should a certain madman have a nuclear weapon. ... Wouldn't natural selection fit ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Letter to the Editor: Proponents of creationism dont have a hidden agenda
    ... Erasmus' letter printed in the Daily Lobo on Friday, ... I would argue that evolutionists are continually ... give random a stipulated meaning while never telling the audience ... Selection is not a random process. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Natural Selection
    ... >> selection creates complex order, without the need for a designing mind. ... WHAT CAUSES GENETIC VARIATION? ... If evolutionists ... > variation, we will finally have a real, testable scientifiic theory. ...
    (talk.origins)