Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Haldane?s Dilemma
In 1993, Walter ReMine wrote a book The Biotic Message saintpaulscience.com) on the evolution controversy. I want to call special attention to his discussion of Haldane?s dilemma in chapter 8 (see an outline of the book?s contents - saintpaulscience.com).
Haldane's Dilemma refers to a limit on the speed of beneficial mutations, first calculated by J.B.S. Haldane in 1957. Haldane found that in higher vertebrates (species with low reproduction rates), the long-term rate of beneficial mutations is about 1 mutation per 300 generations. Building on Haldane?s work, ReMine?s argument is as follows:
?Haldane's Dilemma establishes a limit of 1,667 beneficial substitutions (where a substitution is almost always one nucleotide) over the past ten million years of the lineage leading to humans. The origin of all the uniquely human adaptations would have to be explained within that limit. That is a serious problem.?
Calculation:
1,667 substitutions = 10,000,000 / (20 * 300)
Substitutions = (Years) /
With only 1,667 beneficial nucleotide substitutions (mutations) over the course of about 10 million years, can a primate species turn into a human, who has ? brain size, fully upright posture, language, speech, hand dexterity, hair distribution, and appreciation of music, to name a few?" saintpaulscience.com). The time-scale of ?millions? of years in evolutionary biology may give the impression that evolution can do anything and everything, given many ?millions? of years. But with critical restraining factors such as reproduction rate, mutation rate, population size, and years per generation, the time factor, even if on the order of millions of years, does not bode well for the evolutionary mechanism. This does seem to be a serious problem.
If the substitution rate of nucleotides or the mutation rate were to increase in higher vertebrates, the ratio of harmful-to-beneficial mutations would also increase in the population, and the species would incur a cost, called the ?substitution cost,? which would have to be paid by the reproduction of the species (i.e., the pre-reproduction mortality rate of the species would increase and the substituted nucleotides would not transmit to the next generation). Thus, ReMine says that ?species with low reproduction cannot plausibly pay this cost fast enough to drive evolution at the high rates claimed by evolutionists.? Hence comes the dilemma.
Even though Haldane?s dilemma was a known problem in evolutionary biology in 1957 when the dilemma was first proposed, ReMine asserts that evolutionists negligently failed to communicate the issue to the general public and simply brushed the problem aside under the carpet:
?All those matters were known to evolutionary geneticists in 1957 when Haldane published his argument. Yet despite it being interesting, important, and easy to communicate, they did not inform the public. No, there was no conspiracy. But it was a staggering bit of negligence. Haldane's Dilemma is not just the problem itself, but also the evolutionists' negligence for not communicating it to the public.?
He further says in the outline of chapter 8 on the web link above that ?the problem and its so-called solutions are almost always absent from evolution books, even evolutionary genetics textbooks. Few advanced students are aware of the seriousness of the problem.? In chapter 8 of the book, he explains the problem and refutes the proposed solutions to ?solve? it. In particular, he says that the problem cannot be solved with ?the standard model of evolutionary genetics, the one model prominent in all evolution books,? and yet that ?the standard model continues to be sold (and Haldane's Dilemma ignored) because it is easier to sell the evolutionary program that way.?
Evolutionists have attacked his argument from various fronts, claiming that Haldane?s dilemma has been resolved, that the proponents of ID are unnecessarily resurrecting the dilemma, and that there is no controversy in evolutionary biology about the issue. ReMine strongly objects. He has devoted a webpage to answer his critics saintpaulscience.com) and has archived his debate with an evolutionist saintpaulscience.com).
There have been, without a doubt, contentious arguments regarding Haldane?s dilemma on both sides of the fence. Personally, I have not exhaustively evaluated the evolutionist argument against ReMine. Even if one does not have time to exhaustively investigate the controversy over Haldane?s dilemma, a basic understanding of the key facts and arguments ought to arouse suspicion about the alleged evolution of primates to humans and of higher vertebrates.
Nadeem
Haldane's Dilemma refers to a limit on the speed of beneficial mutations, first calculated by J.B.S. Haldane in 1957. Haldane found that in higher vertebrates (species with low reproduction rates), the long-term rate of beneficial mutations is about 1 mutation per 300 generations. Building on Haldane?s work, ReMine?s argument is as follows:
?Haldane's Dilemma establishes a limit of 1,667 beneficial substitutions (where a substitution is almost always one nucleotide) over the past ten million years of the lineage leading to humans. The origin of all the uniquely human adaptations would have to be explained within that limit. That is a serious problem.?
Calculation:
1,667 substitutions = 10,000,000 / (20 * 300)
Substitutions = (Years) /
With only 1,667 beneficial nucleotide substitutions (mutations) over the course of about 10 million years, can a primate species turn into a human, who has ? brain size, fully upright posture, language, speech, hand dexterity, hair distribution, and appreciation of music, to name a few?" saintpaulscience.com). The time-scale of ?millions? of years in evolutionary biology may give the impression that evolution can do anything and everything, given many ?millions? of years. But with critical restraining factors such as reproduction rate, mutation rate, population size, and years per generation, the time factor, even if on the order of millions of years, does not bode well for the evolutionary mechanism. This does seem to be a serious problem.
If the substitution rate of nucleotides or the mutation rate were to increase in higher vertebrates, the ratio of harmful-to-beneficial mutations would also increase in the population, and the species would incur a cost, called the ?substitution cost,? which would have to be paid by the reproduction of the species (i.e., the pre-reproduction mortality rate of the species would increase and the substituted nucleotides would not transmit to the next generation). Thus, ReMine says that ?species with low reproduction cannot plausibly pay this cost fast enough to drive evolution at the high rates claimed by evolutionists.? Hence comes the dilemma.
Even though Haldane?s dilemma was a known problem in evolutionary biology in 1957 when the dilemma was first proposed, ReMine asserts that evolutionists negligently failed to communicate the issue to the general public and simply brushed the problem aside under the carpet:
?All those matters were known to evolutionary geneticists in 1957 when Haldane published his argument. Yet despite it being interesting, important, and easy to communicate, they did not inform the public. No, there was no conspiracy. But it was a staggering bit of negligence. Haldane's Dilemma is not just the problem itself, but also the evolutionists' negligence for not communicating it to the public.?
He further says in the outline of chapter 8 on the web link above that ?the problem and its so-called solutions are almost always absent from evolution books, even evolutionary genetics textbooks. Few advanced students are aware of the seriousness of the problem.? In chapter 8 of the book, he explains the problem and refutes the proposed solutions to ?solve? it. In particular, he says that the problem cannot be solved with ?the standard model of evolutionary genetics, the one model prominent in all evolution books,? and yet that ?the standard model continues to be sold (and Haldane's Dilemma ignored) because it is easier to sell the evolutionary program that way.?
Evolutionists have attacked his argument from various fronts, claiming that Haldane?s dilemma has been resolved, that the proponents of ID are unnecessarily resurrecting the dilemma, and that there is no controversy in evolutionary biology about the issue. ReMine strongly objects. He has devoted a webpage to answer his critics saintpaulscience.com) and has archived his debate with an evolutionist saintpaulscience.com).
There have been, without a doubt, contentious arguments regarding Haldane?s dilemma on both sides of the fence. Personally, I have not exhaustively evaluated the evolutionist argument against ReMine. Even if one does not have time to exhaustively investigate the controversy over Haldane?s dilemma, a basic understanding of the key facts and arguments ought to arouse suspicion about the alleged evolution of primates to humans and of higher vertebrates.
Nadeem