Talk:Haldane's dilemma/Archive 1

message: First, and most important, there should be a citation and reference for the article in which Haldane introduced the "dilemma".
Second, where does the phrase "Haldane's Dilemma" come from? Who first used it for Haldane's model? And did Haldane himself truly consider it a "dilemma"? If so, did he suggest any way to resolve it?
Third, where did Haldane get his numbers from? Far less was known about genetics back then, and as far as I know, he pulled his numbers out of the air.
MrDarwin 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for article improvement

message: * The text misrepresents ReMine as believing "that this ape-like creature lacked all traits that humans possess". 
* The text misrepresents that ReMine "does not indicate what the starting point was". In reality, ReMine gives the starting point as ten million years ago, and lists various traits that evolutionists claim arose during that time.  4.158.234.23 18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =======

message: Your post is a mix of confusions. For example, in the cost literature, "q" is not the frequency of the substituting allele, and q does not have "exponential growth". Rather "q" is the frequency of the previous allele being eliminated, and it is decreasing.  Also, you use two phrases that are undefined by you and by the literature, namely: "a limited capacity for change" and "the cost to every death" -- both of those are undefined notions. Also, you say "the real problem starts with the assumption that a second trait can only emerge by slowing the emergence of an already evolving trait".  No doubt such an assumption would further slow the substitution rate, but Haldane did not make that assumption. Under Haldane's model, given the same amount of reproductive excess (namely ten-percent), the substitution rate turns out to be the same whether the substitutions occur end-to-end, or concurrently (overlapping in time in arbitrary ways) -- the substitution rate doesn't slow (as you suggest), rather it remains the same. Lastly, Bruce Wallace's book ("Fifty Years of Genetic Load") and his arguments about Haldane's Dilemma are based on the concept of "genetic load", which ReMine claims is a needless source of confusion. 4.158.234.215 03:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ========

message: :Yeah theres been some unethical activity here. Duncharris is just being rude with his reverts. But a lot of edits have been made without discussing them first. I agree that Remine shouldn't have replaced the Remine section without talking about his changes here first (although in his defence I recall Freezbee telling him he was welcome to change it but as always changes should be discussed here first) also Freezbee you should have discussed in here before making the stunt of moving the ReMine section to a new page, i can certainly see why Remine was cut. It looked to him like you were happy to have a page here that had errors that were clearly POV (and erroneous) yet when a page that was factually correct, but perhaps too long and POV, was introduced it didnt just get edited, it got moved completely. Thats double standard.
: My reason for the move was that the "Walter ReMine and Haldane's Dilemma" section had become so large that it would be more appropriate to have its own page, and that a discussion of that section would be a separate issue from the discussion of Haldane's Dilemma in general. I feared that we would run into an "edit war" that would didturb work on the main article. I might have judged wrongly, and I apologize, if I did; but it appeared to be the most proper solution at the time, with a possible reintegration later.
: --FreezBee 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics

message: The current intro section ends with 
: though it is not a problem for evolutionary biology since it consists of a poor model of natural selection that makes invalid assumptions.
This is a much too loose sentence. It is true that it was discovered in the 1960s that far from all genes were fixed. Such concepts as heterosis and linkage disequilibrium invalidate some of Haldane's assumptions; but I do think the formulation should be changed.
--FreezBee 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested change to intro section 

message: Added template so reference citations show up.
Added ReMines paper as the required citation at the end of the sentence per Wiki formalism.71.115.90.62 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Slandering another user in the talk page is frowned upon, slandering another user on the actual edit is wrong and consitutes as wiki_vandalism. I removed his comment "don't you think its creepy that walter refers to himself in third person....." from the main page. This is a warning. Walter R's email is easily obtainable from google if you want to insult him but Wiki is not the place to do it - Graham (Look at the history to see what I'm talking about)
Looks to me like the article has been vandalised. The following does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedia article:
"It is a shame then that Walter ReMine does not ever provide any evidence that 1,667 mutations actually is too few - no, he merely relies on his clumsy prose, silly rhetorical questions (as if they are evidence), and ignorance of gene action and development. For example, he does not seem to realize that 'hand dexterity, vocal speech, language, and the appreciation of music' can all most likely be accounted for by the tripling of brain size. Of course, why ReMine thinks 'appreciation of music' would require a series of fixed, beneficial mutations is anyone's guess. Mine is that he is just desperate and spewed out something that he figured his ignorant target audience would find impressive."
It should be removed. Some individual's opinion about this issue and an accompanying spew is not relevant here. Since the article is clearly in dispute, I won't make the edit. I'll leave it up to the regulars here. The article should provide information about Haldane's dilemma, not the opinons of individuals about why he was "wrong". People appear to be just trying to defend their pet presuppositions and worldviews, not write an informative article. The dilemma is a piece of mathematics, not a criticism of someone's belief structure. There should be no need for this article to be in dispute. -wbhart
:As seen on this thread, ReMine's opponents give vigorous lip-service to "neutral point of view" -- but in the article they allow vandalism and blatant non-neutral attempts to smear him. And they do what they can to AVOID revealing Haldane's Dilemma in any coherent, clear, readable fashion. They seem more than content to leave the article vandalized and non-neutral -- so long as it favors evolution. Such are the scandals of Haldane's Dilemma. 4.158.234.185 03:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm just not as reticent as wbhart, but I went ahead and removed the "offending" (and offensive) paragraph (although it was formatted as part of the paragraph above it).  That's the only edit I made in that section. Mdotley 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reverted it. Mdotley 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: And the dispute is not about mathematics, nor is the dilemma.  It's about the interpretation of it.  Does Haldane's model describe the real world?  At what level?  This is not the place to be answering those questions -- that's what the journals are for.  But it is appropriate to report that there is a dispute over those interpretations, and I think that's what most of this article does.  Maybe no one cares about my opinion, but that's OK. Mdotley 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <B>This WIKI article is a monument to evolutionist attempts to evade, divert, and obscure Haldane's Dilemma from public view.</B> Haldane's Dilemma is not a "concept" -- it is fascinating unsolved problem, which the article strives to bury as deeply as possible in confusion. Haldane's Dilemma is not about the "efficacy of natural selection" -- it is about the inability of evolutionary genetics to cope with its own central issues. Haldane's Dilemma is not about the "extinction of a species" -- it is about the implausibility of high substitution rates. 4.158.231.177 08:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes.  You are probably right.  However, it is important for an encyclopedia to remain as objective as possible.  If you don't take a chill pill, even those who agree with you will soon find you tiresome. Mdotley 16:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On the merits of what you say, perhaps the technical part of the article needs to be moved to a subpage. Mdotley 16:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Real Issue