Originally posted by Fred Williams:

We've asked here many times for creationists to explain to all us wrong-headed evos how, exactly, we should find these information-adding mutations, should they exist. And have received not a single answer.

I see your memory is failing you again. I did provide a criteria, you and several others submitted examples. The examples were either bogus or not provocative. I recall your example fell in the bogus category. :)

Your dismissal of anything provided to you is a given, number one, and irrelevant, number two. You never provided any criteria for after-the-fact detection. At least kooky Borger tried to do that, his loony 'explanation' notwithstanding... What "genetic analyses" did you have in mind? Perhaps the same ones that "informed evos" use to remove SNPs from single sequences prior to performing phylogenetic analyses?*

Me: This is an underestimate because this assumes an atypically high selective value of .1 (Gaylord Simpson believes the average positive selection value is .01). Using the more reasonable selective value the odds are 1 in 500. Page: Please explain to us all how, exactly, this is an overestimate. Please provide the relevant and up to date documentation as well. Simple assertions do not suffice. By the way - GG Simpson was a paleontologist who died in 1984.

I provided the opinion of an evolution(ist) in far greater standing than you (well, I guess he isn't "standing" anymore).

I am hurt. And arguing from authority, to boot. Again, I ask for substantiation for your claim.

You are the one who believes in the fairytale, so provide evidence that .1 is a typical selective value for new beneficial mutations. Good luck!

Burden shifting from Fred Williams - who would have thought? Lesson for today in creationist debate techniques: When asked to support a claim, give an evasive non-answer then shift the burden for the contrarian position upon your opponent. End such 'challenge' with an implicit claim of 'victory'.

Please explain - with supporting documentation, of course - that Haldane used "all kinds of favorable assumptions." Your mentor, ReMine, made the same claim (which you are obviously just parroting). He was repeatedly and directly asked to justify this claim.

I thought you said you finally read his book. I guess not.

No, I did read it. ReMine's unsupported ranting is not documentation.

Favorable assumptions include 1) assuming single gene traits (ie ignoring the impact of quantitative traits), 2) assuming beneficial mutation is always dominant

THAT is "all sorts of favorable assumptions"? LOL! If that was the best ReMine had to offer, no wonder he ignores repeated requests to substantiate his claims!

Perhaps you can carry the torch for Walter and finally provide an explanation for this assertion. Thanks.

Perhaps you should really read his book next time, instead of saying you did.

Imagine that - Fred Williams, 'Christian creationist', implying that someone is lying. If he isn't deleting guestbook posts, he is engaging in these false witness claims. How do you suppose I documented ReMine's dishonest citation technique if I had not read his book? It was painful, to be sure. I had not seen so many self-aggrandizing statements in my life. I cringed at the lack of humility. And worse, at the sheer absence of support for ReMine's fantastical claims. I guess creationists need to be talked down to. Must impress them or something. Oh - inability to support your claims noted, Moderator 3.**

In other words, the '1667 substitutions' case is a worst case scenario: 1667 is the number of substitutions that could occur in genes which, in their effect on the genotype, are independent (a condition which is not often met in nature). I'll post more on this when I have more time...

Interesting. I will be very curious to see this, since I know that multi-gene traits make the 1667 number worse.

You know this, do you?
Amazing. How about explaining it all to us?

Note - it is Williams' attempt to support this claim that is his undoing.

It is good you do occasionally provide something useful to this debate. Perhaps this will be another complete backfire like that Wu paper you cited! :)

Your fantasy world notwithstanding, it is a shame that you lack even the ability to understand your intellectual shortcomings. Your haphazard and uninformed use of terminology and selective knowledge typically comes back to haunt you.

I was not aware that a population's goal would be to return to its original size.

I never claimed it was a goal.

It is implicit in your claims.

It's a quite reasonable baseline when considering a population's fitness.

Sure, for mathematical model purposes. It makes the calculations easier. But is it required?

Also, as big a problem large populations pose for evolution, it's in an even worse conundrum in small populations because genetic drift will move the far more common deleterious mutations to fixation at a greater clip. Savvy?

Yes, I savvy that you are dramatically tunnel-visioned on these issues. Sexual recombination will, as documented in the Rice et al. paper - you remember, the one that you accused the authors of dishonesty - helps to remove deleterious mutations while hastening the fixation of beneficial ones. You might want to read Felsenstein's take on this.

Actually, increasing the selective value would have no impact on the reproductive capacity of the organism at all.

This shows what little you really know about Haldane's Dilemma. Where is Haldane, a pop geneticist in high regard, wrong, and you right? Like you love to often say, "simple assertions" don't mean dit.

Well, you are certainly not in high regard in any area of science, so your superiority\martyr complex explains your continual need to denigrate your intellectual betters, but I suggest your read - carefully - what I wrote and to what I was responding.
I notice that you still call it "Haldane's Dilemma." That shows how little you know about pop genetics and evolution. You really should not rely upon the bombastic tripe churned out by fellow non-expert creationists for your information.
Do you know what reproductive capacity is? It would appear not. I was pointing out the latest in a long line of illogical statements by you based on your dearth of background knowledge in areas that you like to pontificate in.

What happens if we start out with a population of 100,000, a neutral mutation occurs, spreads to, say, 5% of the population, and then an environmental shift occurs, making that previously neutral mutation selectively beneficial. After the elimination of those lacking the mutation, the resulting 5000 member population occupies a new niche.

As mentioned earlier, the problem becomes even greater for the evolutionist fairytale lover, because small populations mean those new harmful mutations that enter the scene at a far greater clip than beneficial ones will now have an increased probability to fix in the population due to genetic drift.

You are a real broken record. Of course, you are dodging the issue.

For those siphoned by selection, new offspring are needed to replace them. Thus, an increased burden on reproductive capacity. That is why Haldane assumed a large population. Small ones don't work. You'll de-evolve from a snail to a pile of dirt real quick!

Yes, well, the Hebrew tribal deity can always make men out of the dirt of the ground using magic, right Fred? And He can also use oil of Hyssop with its "50% antibacterial"*** to make sure that Adam doesn't get sick when scrumping all the other animals trying to see with one he wants to use as an 'helpmeet'. Anyway, as is usually the case with you creationist one-trick-ponies, you dodged the issue. Apparently, the human population must have been in the 10-billion range in the past, because that is where we are headed and, after all, according to you, populations will need to get back to their original size. Guess Adam must have had a lot of brothers... Well, at least I see that you have conceded the point that mutations do not reproduce... :)

Originally posted by Fred Williams: 5) "…He can also use oil of Hyssop with its "50% antibacterial" …" (I dunno, 5 months old?) LOL!

I am not quite sure why YOU would think that is funny. You made the claim and were proved wrong. Nervous laughter, I suppose.

Speaking of the Rice paper, don't you remember I already refuted their misleading claims?

How can one remember something that did not occur? You claiming to have done something is hardly evidence that it occurred. But it is strange that the only person that seems to think that a demonstration of a principle of sexual recombination/evolution in a laboratory environment is "misleading" is a creationist electrical engineer.

Oh wait - no it isn't.

Me: I will be very curious to see this, since I know that multi-gene traits make the 1667 number worse. Dr.Page: You know this, do you? Amazing. How about explaining it all to us?

Say a new beneficial mutation occurs that impacts a quantitative trait. Say this trait is controlled by 5 genes. In order for one offspring to inherit the precise combination of genes, 2^5 offspring would be needed. That's 32, for my math-deficient young apprentice. :)

This is what I concentrate on from here on in. The reasons should be obvious.

Yes, I guess I must be math deficient. However, world-renowned astronomer/mathematician Fred Hoyle is not, and he wrote in his last book that 'Haldane's dilemma' is "an illusion."
I will take his word - the word of an anti-darwinian with legitimate math credentials - over the rants of creationist electrical engineers any day. Even those proclaiming to be experts in information theory :)*

Anyway -
I have asked about this before and you fell silent.
You say:

"In order for one offspring to inherit the precise combination of genes, 2^5 offspring would be needed. That's 32..."

emphases mine.
Please explain - dumb it down for us non-math folk - how it will take 31 other offspring to provide one with the 'right' combination.
I heard on the news the other day that the odds of winning the powerball lottery here is something like 1 in 165 million (or something like that). Yet somebody won.
As Williams the elctrical engineer creationist 'explains' it, it sounds an awful lot like he thinks that 31 non-beneficient 'offspring' will have to be born for the 32nd to possess the desired mutant.
That makes no sense whatsoever to me, and it should make no sense to anyone else.
Each conception is an independent event. Therefore, assuming Williams' numbers are correct (there is little reason to do so, based on his past performances) each conceptus has a 1 in 32 chance of possessing the mutant.
Now, that could very well be the first born, could it not?

But surely there are going to be combinations where the phenotypic expression is not going to be recognizable by natural selection. So the actual barrier falls somewhere between 50% and 97% in the example I gave above. Since Haldane is assuming sing-trait genes, he is assuming 50% all of the time. This is clearly a favorable assumption for his model.

And is offset by his constant population size requirement, which you conveniently have decided not to discuss anymore. Hmm - didn't Haldane offer several models for different types of alleles, such as recessives and such? Why, yes - yes he did!
But surely, you remember the FGF-3 receptor gene?
Surely you have heard of the HOX genes and other developmental regulatory genes?
Genes whose expression during development influences and/or directs morphological development?
How do they fit in?
Surely you must know that many if not most evolutionary biologists now consider these genes to be much more important than genes that control or influence single traits?
Oh, and while you are at it, perhaps you can produce one of your content-packed posts with an explanation for why the 1667 number (ala ReMine) has any relevance at all.
BTW - your intellectual mentor ReMine has written that the fact that Pandas have to eat lots of bamboo to live is supportive of his "Message theory" (myth is a more applicable name) because the creator wouldn't design critters that would deforest the planet...**
If you can't see the idiocy of that position, I can explain it to you...


*Williams claims to be an "expert" in information theory. This is most interesting. I document his amazing credential here:

In 1999, we see that Williams considers himself able to speak on 'Information Theory' only 'above the intermediate level:
=============================================================
From: Fred M. Williams (fredmwNOSPAM@polnow.net)
Subject: Re: Evolution Fairy Tale site updated, finally!
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/07/24
…. I've spent quite a bit of time since then studying information theory …Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the implementation of various protocols, including design of new proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like this…

=============================================================

And yet, a mere 2 years later, Fred has become an expert:

==========================================================

From: Fred M. Williams (fredwNOSPAM@usa.com) Subject: Re: Credentials of Fred Williams? Newsgroups: talk.origins View: Complete Thread (19 articles) | Original Format Date: 2001-02-09 13:10:13 PST
On 8 Feb 2001 15:32:32 -0500, John Stockwell wrote:
>It would be interesting if Fred would supply us with some outline of his technical background, including any technical publications in this field, if he is, indeed, an "expert in information theory" as he claims.
Go to my site for my bio. See John, I have to actually use communication theory to do my work. That makes me an expert. Have I published in tech journals, no, I'm not a professor. If you have doubt to my expertise, then feel free to inquire McDATA, or call the IBM Sysplex Timer division and ask them about my qualifications in this area…
==================================================================

What happened in that intervening time to elevate Fred from being able to discuss 'Information Theory' above the "intermediate level" to being an "expert"?
By his own admission, he did not contribute anything to the field. He did not engage in any sort of educational program, nor did he conduct any relevant research. He simply 'uses' Information Theory, supposedly, in his work, and this has made him an expert in only 2 years.

What is the real reason? Only Williams knows, I suppose, but I can make an educated guess.

Doing a Deja.com search for Williams, we see that his earliest posts date to about 1997 (at least none show up in searches dating to 1996 – to see that one thing remains constant – Fred's charm – see this early post
[http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Fred+Williams%22+information+theory+1997&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&selm=339822b0.56228620%40news.prodigy.net&rnum=1]

Since then, it appears that Williams became much more active in the anti-evolution propaganda department. As we all know, creationists almost always embellish their credentials not only, I suspect, to impress and sway lay creationists, but to make themselves feel more important and confident.

Thus, Williams evolves from a muckraking, quote-mining, insulting 'intermediate level' talker to a muckraking, insulting 'expert', while doing absolutely nothing to warrant this elevation in status.

Simply amazing!
When he addresses this embellishment at all, he relies on his "18+ years" of experience.
Well, I've been driving a car for 20 years - does that qualify me as an expert mechanic?

**See the section on "cellulase." Quite entertaining.




The next reply:

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Page: But it is strange that the only person that seems to think that a demonstration of a principle of sexual recombination/evolution in a laboratory environment is "misleading" is a creationist electrical engineer.

Of course you know I did not say the above was misleading. What I said is misleading is their claim that recombination is an advantage to evolution:

Snip sophism. Please explain how removing deleterious mutations while accelerating the fixation of beneficial ones is not an advantage to evolution.

Fred Hoyle wrote in his last book that 'Haldane's dilemma' is "an illusion."

What is it about Hoyle's argument that convinces you it's an illusion?

Haven't read it. Have you? But like I said - I would take his word over yours any day.

You say: "In order for one offspring to inherit the precise combination of genes, 2^5 offspring would be needed. That's 32..." emphases mine.
Please explain - dumb it down for us non-math folk - how it will take 31 other offspring to provide one with the 'right' combination.

To get 5 is 2^5 or 1 in 32. So on average one out of every 32 offspring will inherit the precise combination (thus 32 offspring are needed to have an even chance).

TAKE NOTE - Williams writes: "...32 offspring are needed..."

You said that before. However, I must now question whether or not you took even undergraduate statistics, as you clearly have no clue whatsoever what statistical inferences indicate. You do not seem to realize that conceptions are independent events. That is, each conception would therefore have a 1 in 32 chance of getting the combination you used in your worst case scenario. As such, that means that, in fact, it could very well be the first born. I am flabbergasted at this sophomoric gaffe on your part - you had me convinced at one point that you actually knew what you were talking about. This demonstrates the shortcomings of pontificating on subjects that one has no business doing so on. Unless you are just making one of your 'patented' "shortcomings of the medium" deals...*

I heard on the news the other day that the odds of winning the powerball lottery here is something like 1 in 165 million (or something like that). Yet somebody won.

This is a meaningless statement. It appears you are headed directly toward a very common fallacy in statistics. See the "Fallacies & Traps" chapter in Forgotten Statistics (or any other stats book that covers the traps).

I suggest that you re-read the book. Or better yet learn some elementary statistics. When you do this, you should also read some elementary developmental biology books. Perhaps then you might - MIGHT - realize that each conception is an independent event.
If your "explanation" above had any basis in reality, then there would necessarily have to be 165 million lottery tickets sold in order for a winner to emerge, and, what is more, premised directly on your above claim, the winner would be the very last ticket purchaser.

As Williams the electrical engineer creationist 'explains' it, it sounds an awful lot like he thinks that 31 non-beneficient 'offspring' will have to be born for the 32nd to possess the desired mutant. That makes no sense whatsoever to me, and it should make no sense to anyone else. Each conception is an independant event. Therefore, assuming Williams numbers are correct (there is little reason to do so, based on his past performances) each conceptus has a 1 in 32 chance of possessing the mutant. Now, that could very well be the first born, could it not?

It could, but the average hurdle is nevertheless 1 in 32 (as opposed to 1 in 2 to inherit a trait controlled by a single mutated gene).

And you thus directly contradict your claim above.

Which is it Fred?
The 32nd is the one, or each event a 1 in 32 chance?
You cannot have it both ways.

Thus, for species that do not commonly produce 32+offspring, the already low frequency of beneficial mutations is reduced further since most new beneficial mutations will never even make it to the 2nd generation.

Please return to the board AFTER you educate yourself on elementary statistics and developmental biology.

Multigene families are common and probably average more than 5 genes. This would have a major impact on Haldane's cost, and in turn makes the 1 in 300 substitution rate unrealistically too high.

Do you have any clue what a multi-gene family is?
Really, Fred, you are showing your miserable knowledge of these topics here. You do not, unfortunately for you, get to make your own terminology, nor do you get to apply real terms as you personally see fit.
Find out what a gene family is.

And is offset by his constant population size requirement, which you conveniently have decided not to discuss anymore.

I'd love to discuss it, I have stated that it is at worst a favorable assumption and at best a NULL assumption. If you think a shifting population size somehow lessens the substitution rate, I'd love to hear how.

100,000 starting pop.
5% have a beneficial mutant after origination and drift.
Environmental shift occurs.
5,000 are left, all those with the beneficial allele.
New population size of 5000.
Cost already paid.
Savvy?

But surely, you remember the FGF-3 receptor gene? Surely you have heard of the HOX genes and other developmental regulatory genes? Genes whose expression during development influences and/or directs morphological development? How do they fit in?

Very badly. My understanding is that copying errors to HOX genes are far more likely to cause harm than copy errors to non-HOX genes.

Your memory is pathetic. One of the citations I had offered demonstrating the futility of the "no new information" pleas dealt with duplication of a HOX gene that altered phenotype and corrected deleterious mutations in one copy. Keep up your studies.

Thus, the cost required to pay for lethals increases (more offspring to account for these genetic deaths), increasing the overall substitution rate. Methinks you are attempting a red herring?

You can think whatever you want. I am pointing out that things are not the way you like to portray them.

Surely you must know that many if not most evolutionary biologists now consider these genes to be much more important than genes that control or influence single traits?

Exactly my point. And don't call me Surely. :)

If that was your point, I have to wonder why you prattled on about single trait genes and all that.
Apparently, you have not learned a thing in all these years.
I am planning (again) to wind down my 'net activity.
So, hit me with your next round of gaffes and illinformed nonsense and that will be it...



*In previous encounters, Williams had often blamed his errors on his inability to put into words - the correct words, anyway - his intentions. He referred to this as "shortcomings of the medium". The medium being written English...


The next reply:

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Haven't read it. Have you?

Yep. But it is not an easy read. If you check it out you will see what I mean. It will take some digging to really begin to understand where he is going. I just haven't had the time because it would be a significant effort (ie dusting off Calc 3 and Diff Equation books). Maynard Smith is an evolutionist who has gone through it and admits it is not convincing. The one thing I recall is that Hoyle estimated the rate would be more like 10 generations instead of 300.

Interesting then that he could be so right on everything but so wrong on "Haldane's Dilemma."
Did Hoyle require that the population strive to return to its original size?

You do not seem to realize that conceptions are independent events.

Yes. I also realize you are equivocating/hairsplitting again. Your comment about the lottery already clued me in you were heading to a big, black, fallacy hole. To your defense it is an *extremely* common fallacy. My point remains that the reproductive hurdle goes from 50% to somewhere between 50 and 97% (using my example). Haldane assumes 50%. A very favorable assumption for his model, one that we have learned in the years since his model is grossly unrealistic.

Your "equivocating/hairsplitting" charge is a given. I am sorry, but I was responding directly to your own words and application of probability.
You mentioned a "1 in 32" chance of getting the combination you required in your "worst case scenario". You imply that your "worst case scenario" is more realistic than Haldane's model - which makes it even more interesting that you keep referring to Haldane's model with the high regard that you do. Perhaps you should write up a manuscript and submit it to a real journal. I must warn you - scientific journal editors and reviewers do not look favorably at the overuse of italics and exclamation points, and unsupported assertions and personal opinions are right out.

Anyway, you mentioned a "1 in 32" chance, and that it means that 32 "offspring" are required for there to be a chance.
I looked up a lottery page
([url=http://www.molottery.state.mo.us/aboutourgames/howtowin/numbergames/powerball/powerball_understandingodds.shtm]Powerball - Understanding the Odds[/url] and it is explained that the odds of winning this paticular game are 1 in 120 million.

The last I knew, there were something like 265 million people - which includes infants and children - in the U.S.
According to your implications (and claims) in previous posts, that should mean that nearly half of the people in the U.S. need to buy Missouri powerball tickets in order for there to be a winner. Or 1/4 of the people in the U.S. need to buy 2 tickets, etc. That is clearly not the case, and it is no trap or fallacy.

Here in the NE, there is the tri-state megabucks. It covers VT, NH, and ME, with a combined population of about 3 million. The odds of winning are 1 in 5.2 million (http://www.vtlottery.com/faq.htm). Yet someone won recently. I doubt that all persons living in VT, NH, and ME all purchased ~2 tickets each. Nobody I know purchased any. Not to mention that there are like 4 other lottery games to choose from.
Perhaps you can find in one of your dusty math texts or perhaps in your Fallacies and Traps book - and cite and quote it for us - wherein it states that in order for one to win a lottery (or any similar example) all possible outcomes must be attempted in order for the winning combination to be realized.

One will notice that Williams does not do this.

This will have a direct impact on your claim that 32 "offspring" are required to get a chance of the 'right' combination (as per your worst case scenario) of alleles in one.
Remembering, of course, that those conceptus' with lethals are not 'offspring.'
I think that perhaps THAT would be the fallacy or trap...

...you had me convinced at one point that you actually knew what you were talking about.

I did? When? :)

Do you have any clue what a multi-gene family is?

Yes. I meant multi-gene (quantitative) traits, as I wrote several times earlier. I "miswrote" when I said "family" in my latest post. Perhaps you will save this "gaffe" in your "Williams" file? :)

I suspect I have "multi-family" on the brain from reading all those posts between you and Peter, you know, the ones where you are taking one devastatingly severe whoopin'!

Peter Borger is an asthma researcher now living in Australia who claims to have "disproved" evolution and developed his own anti-evolutionary "theory", which he calls the "Grand Unifying Theory of Biology". The evidence for his "theory" is actually evidence against. He relies upon an already debunked notion - "directed mutations", and, for good measure, has thrown in some made-up nonsense - particles he calls "creatons" and magical waves of change inducing energy he calls "morphogenic fields." He has presented no evidence whatsoever that either of these exist. Nevertheless, since he is against evoolution - actually, the supposed "atheistic nihilism" of evolution - Williams and other creationists support him and heap accolades on his every muttering. It is simultaneously pathetic and entertaiing to watch this internet back-patting between equally clueless folks...

100,000 starting pop.
5% have a beneficial mutant after origination and drift.
Environmental shift occurs.
5,000 are left, all those with the beneficial allele.
New population size of 5000.
Cost already paid.
Savvy?

I can't count the times this has been shown to be bogus. Small populations will invariably reduce the fitness of the species because genetic drift works against selection.

That is, the spread of mutations is driven by randomness and not selection, and thus the far more prevalent deleterious mutations will spread more than they would in a much larger population where selection can work.

Do you seriously think reducing fitness is good for evolution. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. Many on this board and elsewhere have implied the same thing! Doesn't it get tiring defending the indefensible? "Alice really did see a rabbit, doggonit!" :)

I am planning (again) to wind down my 'net activity.

Yea, right, when have I heard this before! :) Actually, I do say this in good humor. I don't know how many times I've told myself to "wind down my net activity", only to find myself back on the boards a couple weeks later. Good luck on your attempt, maybe you will be more successful than I.

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Your "equivocating/hairsplitting" charge is a given.

There is a reason it's a given. "32 offspring are needed to have an even chance" means precisely that. An even chance means 50%. Not 0, not 100%. It follows that 1 offspring yields a 1 in 32 chance, which means there is a chance, and it could be the first offspring. I never said otherwise. In fact, my context has always been that the hurdle worst case is 97%, not 100%. Normally, resorting to such trivial hairsplitting is a clear sign the person engaging in it cannot defend his position, so I am only too pleased to point it out when my opponent engages in it. :)

You can couch your ego-pumping anyway you want to. You can imply that you are 'winning' and that I am 'hairsplitting' all you want to. You can posture and spew bombast till the second coming. None of that will change the fact that you are either:
1. purposely throwing out red herrings in a pathetic attempt to convince people – probably even yourself – that your 'analysis' has some sort of merit or
2. You are so deluded that you actually cannot see the simplistic error in your claims.

Lets try it again. You reiterate and "stand by" this claim of yours:

"32 offspring are needed to have an even chance"
And yet in the very same paragraph, a mere three sentences later, you write:
"It follows that 1 offspring yields a 1 in 32 chance, which means there is a chance, and it could be the first offspring."

These are mutually exclusive and contradictory statements. On the one hand, you are saying that 32 "offspring" are needed for your worst case scenario to have a chance of success – that is, 32 offspring will need to be born and, it follows from that, that we would have to wait until the 32nd offspring is in fact born to see the combination (otherwise, 32 offspring would in fact NOT "be needed").
Yet you also state that the first born could, in fact, BE the "1 in 32".
I do not think that I have ever seen such an easily refuted set of ideas.

You imply that your "worst case scenario" is more realistic than Haldane's model

Again, I implied no such thing.

True – you more or less said it outright.

In fact I made it clear the multi-gene problem makes the reproduction hurdle lie somewhere between 50 & 97% (in the example I gave). If I had focused on "the worst case scenario" I would have stuck with 97%, instead of 50-97%. As a reminder, Haldane assumed a hard 50%. We now know that multi-gene traits makes this number higher (by how much we do not know).

And thus, you make the claim that your 'model' is more realistic than Haldane's because, according, it seems only to your and probably ReMine from whom you doubtless 'borrowed' this amazing information, multi-gene traits raise the 'barrier' and this is supposedly a more common genomic reality.
Yet you also contradicted this notion when you admitted that genes influencing development are probably more important in evolution. Single genes can, in fact, have profound impacts on not only phenotype, but on physiology as well. I have provided citations supportive of this. You have provided none for your claims in this matter.
You have also yet to provide a single verifiable, relevant citation supportive of the claim that a strict application of Haldane's 1957 model proves that "man-monkey"(sic) ancestry is impossible.

Oh, wait - you have previously admitted that there is none. So I have to wonder why you keep using that as an argument?

You are misrepresenting my scenario. It starts out as a large population. The selection has already taken place. That is why there are now only 5000 individuals instead of 100,000. Savvy?

No I'm not. If the selection has already taken place, it means the selection was very intense. This means reduced fitness, which you later admit is not good for evolution.

In my scenario, the survivors would in fact BE the 'fit' ones. Should be obvious. I see that one of your biggest problems is that you put too much emphasis on and rely too much upon mathematical models. As early as the 1970's, it had been observed that there are many instances in which Haldane's model did not apply. You and your handlers seem to want to ignore observation in favor of the strict application of largely inapplicable mathematical models.
It is funny – I watched a PBS program on flight a while back, and it was mentioned that Lord Kelvin (you know who he is, right Fred?)* declared heavier-than-air flight to be impossible and that another guy, whose name I forget, declared that mathematically, bumblebees should not be able to fly.

Now, heavier than air flight happens daily, and bumblebees do fly.
Were you a contemporary of Kelvin, I dare say that you would look at the Wright brother's plane and declare it to be a myth, an illusion, because after all, mathematical models declare it to be impossible!

Anyway, the way you haphazardly throw scientific terminology around, I don't know exactly what you mean half the time (nor does anyone else). The individuals in the now reduced population – the ones in possession of the mutant which is now fixed – will only produce offspring with the beneficial mutant. If the environment is such that possession of this mutant is a key to survival, then clearly the population's fitness is not reduced. Any offspring will be "reproductive excess", as it were.

So, you use a mechanism you admit is bad for evolution as a solution for something that is bad for evolution!

I see you have been honing your misrepresentation skills. Good work.

Man, it's got to be real frustrating defending such a vacuous fairytale. No wonder you want to cut back your internet time. :)

Yes, I suppose it would be more productive to keep a website on which I could publish essays purporting that the ancient Hebrews knew about microbes, that oil of hyssop contains 50% antibacterials, that fixed beneficial mutations are the same as the total number of mutations separating chimps and humans, etc.
No need to defend any of that – it MUST be true because, after all, it props up a religion! And all it takes to do that is repeated unsupported assertion.

Me: That is, the spread of mutations is driven by randomness and not selection, and thus the far more prevalent deleterious mutations will spread more than they would in a much larger population where selection can work. Good thing that sexual recombination works to counter that...

Yes, it sure does. No creationist disputes this.

Odd then that you accused Rice of being "misleading." Two blatant contradictions in one post.

What we claim (and many evolutionists realize) is that recombination is an enigma for evolution. Recombination merely serves to retard "de-evolution". Even Rice showed this, but he tried to pull a fast one by extrapolating this to mean that recombination is an advantage for evolution (even though he also admitted it was an "enigma"!).

So, if one does not fully understand how something operates, it cannot be used as support for something. Interesting.
So, I should have to ask if you fully understand and can explain – in scientific terms, of course – how the Hebrew tribal deity accomplished all this? I should not have to provide the disclaimer that "He willed it thus" or some such gibberish will not suffice.

He seemed to only fool evolutionists with that sleight-of-hand. If I were you I'd be mad that he snagged you hook, line, and sinker with that illusion. :)

It appears that hurling disparaging accusations is the best you can do. I am not the least bit surprised.

You write: "it does get tiring having to read the illinformed (and disinformed) pontificate on matters that they have no business doing so on". I "pontificate" because it flabbergasts me that you refuse to see that the Rice paper, or specifically your continual reference to it as showing some positive force or advantage for evolution, is utterly bogus beyond words.

And you – a shining light of scientific integrity and expertise – are just trying to show us all the way!
Oh, thank you thank you!

I am glad you dropped the Wu paper,

Your ignorance-based arrogance is shining brightly, I see. I "dropped" the Wu paper because it has no applicability in the context of this thread.

but as you continue to insist the Rice paper has something to offer evolution, I will continue to point out it has nothing to offer evolution (except for the reminder of the bad news, that recombination is an "enigma" that actually is counter-evolution).

Your continual misrepresentation of both the Rice paper and my use of it is duly noted. The Rice paper demonstrates theoretical predictions. That you cannot/will not understand that is no enigma at all.

Why don't you tell us what evidence Rice has uncovered that shows recombination is an advantage for evolution?

Apparently, you did not read the paper.

As I pointed out in our debate, Rice merely showed recombination is an advantage only when contrasting sexual organisms to asexual organisms when harmful mutation rates are high (hardly an advantage to evolution).

Yes, I am well aware that you think you made some major 'discovery.' As I pointed out in what you call a debate, a comparison had to be made in order for any advantage to be gleaned.
As for this "harmful mutation rates are high", how can you actually believe that a mechanism that reduces the genetic load while hastening the fixation of beneficial mutants is not an advantage? Words cannot express the sheer stupefaction I am feeling at this stubborn idiocy you are exhibiting. Indeed – such a mechanism in a "high mutation rate" environment is a major advantage in any "worldview"!
Of course, if what you say is true, then this claim:

"In our experiments, we emulated feasible natural conditions by using moderate levels of selection relative to population size and background selection."

from the paper in question is an outright lie.
Is that true, Fred? Perhaps then you can explain – with supporting documentation, of course – that your accusations have merit.

Bye, Fred. Hopefully for a long time...

I've never known you to go without giving the last word. What if I keep responding? :)

You can run around claiming that you "won".
Wait - you do that regardless..

PS. I'm not positive, but I recall Hoyle also assumed a large, cosntant population size. If I remember I'll check it tonight (the book is at home).

Even more odd, then, that this master mathematician could be so right on everything anti-Darwinian, but all wrong on Haldane's model.

And his claim that one of the 8 intact Archaeopteryx fossils was a fake...

*Williams, as have many other creationists, likes to produce quotes from folks with some authority indicating that they do not accept evolution, as if this means that evolution is false. One of these is Lord Kelvin. Lord Kelvin apparently felt that things were too 'complex' to not have been created. As I indicate above, this same chap claimed that planes cannot fly. Also of interest, Kelvin measured the age of the earth at several million years based on calculated heat loss. He did not know about radioactivity and how the earth generates its own internal heat, which throws off the numbers significantly, Nonetheless, millions of years is orders of magnitude older than the Young Earth Creationist position of no more than 10,000 years old. Funny that they don't quote Kelvin on his age of the earth calculations...


The last post was made by me on January 10th, 2003. Williams made no further contributions on this topic, and I think the reasons are clear.

This is merely the latest in a long, unpleasant round of exchanges between myself and Williams in which the overconfidence (born of ignorance) and willingness to distort of the creationist is yet again exposed.

One should wonder why it is that, if Williams' young earth creationist position is so "right", why he feels the need to engage in such activity.

As an interesting aside, Robert Rapier made an update, and I published an addendum to the article A Lesson in Creationist Ethics Featuring Walter ReMine and Fred Williams on January 31.
One of the sources for the information in these articles was the CreationWeb website. The very next day, Feb. 1, CreationWeb experienced a major hack-attack, shutting down the site and destroying much of the data stored on the server. This is discussed here..

Comments welcome.