Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[1Tonne]

And that respect was due to his incisive mind that could - among other things - identify areas of uncertainty within evolutionary theory, That respect for him and for the questions he posed led many other brilliant minds to explore and resolve the dilemma. It is a pity you have chosen not to respect their work, or their solutions, but instead disrespect Haldane by abusing his name via a fallacious Argument from Authority. Duly noted.

Recognising Haldane’s brilliance includes acknowledging that his dilemma raised a real mathematical challenge for evolutionary theory. The fact that many have attempted resolutions doesn't mean the problem is resolved, especially when those 'solutions' either sidestep the reproductive cost issue or rely on unproven mechanisms.
Appealing to the fact that 'others have addressed it' without demonstrating how they overcame the core math isn't a rebuttal, it's deflection. I'm not invoking Haldane as an authority to shut down debate, but to highlight that this problem was raised from within the evolutionary community, not by outsiders. That makes dismissing it without serious engagement all the more telling.

 

[Ophiolite]

Recognising Haldane’s brilliance includes acknowledging that his dilemma raised a real mathematical challenge for evolutionary theory. The fact that many have attempted resolutions doesn't mean the problem is resolved, especially when those 'solutions' either sidestep the reproductive cost issue or rely on unproven mechanisms.
Appealing to the fact that 'others have addressed it' without demonstrating how they overcame the core math isn't a rebuttal, it's deflection. I'm not invoking Haldane as an authority to shut down debate, but to highlight that this problem was raised from within the evolutionary community, not by outsiders. That makes dismissing it without serious engagement all the more telling.

There has been abundant engagement. The fact that you choose not to recognise it is, in your words, all the more telling. Repeating a refuted argument doesn't win the argument, it makes you appear naive, or worse. I recommend you quit while you are only behind.

 

[sjastro]

You’re simply repeating common talking points that have been around for decades, none of which have resolved Haldane’s actual dilemma. Claiming neutral mutations fix doesn’t answer the real issue: how long it takes for beneficial mutations to spread and accumulate when those alone are needed to drive the kind of large-scale functional changes evolutionary theory demands. Even Kimura’s neutral theory was proposed in part to escape the mathematical constraints Haldane identified, it didn’t solve them.
Pointing to 'multiple pathways' also doesn’t bypass the reproductive cost Haldane calculated, which applies to populations as a whole, not just lineages.
So yes, despite all the noise, the core mathematical problem remains. You’ve offered reinterpretations, not refutations.
Still, evolution fails, and no one can refute Haldane's dilemma. Thanks for coming.

This the cognitive dissonance I was referring to which is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting blah, blah, blah.

When mutations occur, most are neutral, some are deleterious (and quickly lost), and a few are beneficial (favored by selection).
Haldane’s dilemma argued that adaptive substitutions are limited by the “cost of selection,” because replacing one allele with another requires genetic deaths. He concluded only a small number of beneficial substitutions could fix over evolutionary time.
In the 1960s, the neutral theory of molecular evolution showed that most substitutions are neutral, not adaptive. Neutral alleles can drift without cost, meaning that the majority of molecular evolution bypasses Haldane’s constraint. Where adaptive substitutions do occur involving modern ideas such as parallel substitutions which were unknown when the dilemma was proposed in 1957, show that adaptive substitutions can also spread faster and at lower cost than Haldane assumed.
So Haldane's dilemma did not spell the deathknell of evolution as you so desperately want.

 

[1Tonne]

There has been abundant engagement. The fact that you choose not to recognise it is, in your words, all the more telling. Repeating a refuted argument doesn't win the argument, it makes you appear naive, or worse. I recommend you quit while you are only behind.

Repeated assertions aren’t the same as resolving the math. Over 300 posts, no one clearly demonstrated how Haldane’s original dilemma, regarding the speed limits of beneficial mutation fixation, has been overcome without hand-waving or invoking assumptions that just move the problem.

This the cognitive dissonance I was referring to which is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting blah, blah, blah.

When mutations occur, most are neutral, some are deleterious (and quickly lost), and a few are beneficial (favored by selection).
Haldane’s dilemma argued that adaptive substitutions are limited by the “cost of selection,” because replacing one allele with another requires genetic deaths. He concluded only a small number of beneficial substitutions could fix over evolutionary time.
In the 1960s, the neutral theory of molecular evolution showed that most substitutions are neutral, not adaptive. Neutral alleles can drift without cost, meaning that the majority of molecular evolution bypasses Haldane’s constraint. Where adaptive substitutions do occur involving modern ideas such as parallel substitutions which were unknown when the dilemma was proposed in 1957, show that adaptive substitutions can also spread faster and at lower cost than Haldane assumed.
So Haldane's dilemma did not spell the deathknell of evolution as you so desperately want.

Haldane’s Dilemma raised a fundamental question about the rate at which beneficial mutations can be fixed in a population under selection. The invocation of neutral theory, which deals with non-beneficial mutations drifting through populations, doesn’t directly address the original mathematical constraint Haldane highlighted, namely, the substitution load for adaptive traits. Simply pointing to parallel substitutions or theoretical accelerations doesn’t show, mathematically, that the dilemma has been resolved.
The volume of responses isn’t evidence that the dilemma is solved, just that it remains uncomfortable. When the focus shifts from engaging with the original problem to questioning the motives of the one who raised it, that says more than words.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Recognising Haldane’s brilliance includes acknowledging that his dilemma raised a real mathematical challenge for evolutionary theory. The fact that many have attempted resolutions doesn't mean the problem is resolved, especially when those 'solutions' either sidestep the reproductive cost issue or rely on unproven mechanisms.
Appealing to the fact that 'others have addressed it' without demonstrating how they overcame the core math isn't a rebuttal, it's deflection. I'm not invoking Haldane as an authority to shut down debate, but to highlight that this problem was raised from within the evolutionary community, not by outsiders. That makes dismissing it without serious engagement all the more telling.

Let me tell you about something else that is telling:

I am not a biologist, so I didn't learn about "Haldane's dilemma" in school and have only heard about it from creationists in places like this one. Do you know what it tells me that the biological community doesn't talk much about it and doesn't teach it in introductory and popular materials? That they don't think it is a problem. Either it is solved or has been reduced to "not really a problem" and they've got better things to spend time on. If it were truly still a problem in actual evolutionary biology, they'd worry a lot more about it. I suspect even Haldane didn't thought it was the "challenge" your lying apologist and the garbage-tier apologists citing him think it is.

 

[1Tonne]

I am not a biologist, so I didn't learn about "Haldane's dilemma" in school

You won't be taught it in schools because then you would not believe it. You would know it has big issues. If they did acknowledge that it has big issues, then people may start to acknowledge a creator. If they acknowledge a creator, then they would be accountable to him. But they love their sin, and so they do not want to acknowledge Him.

Let me tell you about something else that is telling:

I am not a biologist, so I didn't learn about "Haldane's dilemma" in school and have only heard about it from creationists in places like this one. Do you know what it tells me that the biological community doesn't talk much about it and doesn't teach it in introductory and popular materials? That they don't think it is a problem. Either it is solved or has been reduced to "not really a problem" and they've got better things to spend time on. If it were truly still a problem in actual evolutionary biology, they'd worry a lot more about it. I suspect even Haldane didn't thought it was the "challenge" your lying apologist and the garbage-tier apologists citing him think it is.

It’s precisely because Haldane was a respected evolutionary biologist that his dilemma deserves fair attention, not dismissal. Saying 'the scientific community doesn't talk about it much anymore' isn’t a rebuttal, it’s an appeal to consensus silence. Many complex problems in science don’t disappear just because they aren’t popular talking points. If a fundamental mathematical constraint was raised by one of evolution’s own pioneers, it should be carefully addressed, not brushed off because apologists also mention it. Ignoring the math doesn’t solve the math. But because they feel as though they have no answer, it gets brushed aside.

 

[BCP1928]

Let me tell you about something else that is telling:

I am not a biologist, so I didn't learn about "Haldane's dilemma" in school and have only heard about it from creationists in places like this one. Do you know what it tells me that the biological community doesn't talk much about it and doesn't teach it in introductory and popular materials? That they don't think it is a problem. Either it is solved or has been reduced to "not really a problem" and they've got better things to spend time on. If it were truly still a problem in actual evolutionary biology, they'd worry a lot more about it. I suspect even Haldane didn't thought it was the "challenge" your lying apologist and the garbage-tier apologists citing him think it is.

Cue "They're just trying to ignore it because it would keep them from using the theory of evolution to deny the existence of God." In 3...2...1...

Edit: Darn. I was late.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You won't be taught it in schools because then you would not believe it. You would know it has big issues. If they did acknowledge that it has big issues, then people may start to acknowledge a creator.

That logic does not follow in the slightest. If evolution is shown to be wrong, that does not automatically and directly mean that creation is a legitimate scientific explanation for anything.

If they acknowledge a creator, then they would be accountable to him. But they love their sin, and so they do not want to acknowledge Him.

And there's the mask off moment. It's got nothing to do with science, it's purely because it offends your religious sensibilities and your own personal interpretation of the Bible! HALLELUJAH! THE TRUTH HAS BEEN SET FREE!

 

[River Jordan]

Since no one was able to provide a clear resolution to Haldane’s Dilemma across more than 300 posts, it’s not surprising that the conversation has now shifted from addressing evidence to mocking the person who raised it. When the argument can’t be refuted, the messenger becomes the target.
Feel free to continue the discussion without me, knowing that none of you were able to defeat the first post, and so, evolution remains mathematically impossible.

I guess then you've decided that the fundamental errors in the OP's video don't matter? It doesn't matter that Hovind thinks every individual nucleotide difference between genomes requires its own separate mutation, and that every change has to be selectively beneficial?

I suspect that all you know about Haldane's dilemma is what you've gotten from creationists. I'd bet you've never read Haldane's original paper, nor have you read any papers about it in the ensuing 68 years either. Is that accurate?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You won't be taught it in schools because then you would not believe it. You would know it has big issues. If they did acknowledge that it has big issues, then people may start to acknowledge a creator. If they acknowledge a creator, then they would be accountable to him. But they love their sin, and so they do not want to acknowledge Him.

What was that nonsense? The topic is biology and biology education. Belief's got nuttin' to do with it.

It’s precisely because Haldane was a respected evolutionary biologist that his dilemma deserves fair attention, not dismissal. Saying 'the scientific community doesn't talk about it much anymore' isn’t a rebuttal, it’s an appeal to consensus silence.

Ugh. This sort of conspiracy theory about internal "hiding" in science bloods my boil. Them's fightin' words, Bruce.

Many complex problems in science don’t disappear just because they aren’t popular talking points.

I can guarantee you that I know far more about unsolved, complex problems in science that you ever will.

If a fundamental mathematical constraint was raised by one of evolution’s own pioneers, it should be carefully addressed, not brushed off because apologists also mention it. Ignoring the math doesn’t solve the math. But because they feel as though they have no answer, it gets brushed aside.

It would seem that you and that lying apologist in the OP video are the ones not paying attention to the solutions. Even *I* knew that there was no requirement for sequential fixation of new gene variants. Not to mention that the source video *lies* about how much variation needs to be accounted for. You are fighting the wrong side of the fight with false sources and repetitive rejection of actual solutions to the problem you presented.

 

[River Jordan]

Recognising Haldane’s brilliance includes acknowledging that his dilemma raised a real mathematical challenge for evolutionary theory. The fact that many have attempted resolutions doesn't mean the problem is resolved, especially when those 'solutions' either sidestep the reproductive cost issue or rely on unproven mechanisms.

Name one.

 

[River Jordan]

I suspect even Haldane didn't thought it was the "challenge" your lying apologist and the garbage-tier apologists citing him think it is.

You're correct. Haldane noted in the same paper where he described his dilemma, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision". He knew very well that his model significantly over-simplified things.

But that doesn't matter to creationists like @1Tonne who all they know about it is that some creationists have told them it's a slam dunk against evolution. They truly don't understand the subject (as evidenced by their posts), which prevents any kind of in-depth discussion.

It''s like trying to explain the intricacies of soccer formations and strategies to someone whose knowledge of the sport is "they just kick the ball around".

 

[sjastro]

Haldane’s Dilemma raised a fundamental question about the rate at which beneficial mutations can be fixed in a population under selection. The invocation of neutral theory, which deals with non-beneficial mutations drifting through populations, doesn’t directly address the original mathematical constraint Haldane highlighted, namely, the substitution load for adaptive traits. Simply pointing to parallel substitutions or theoretical accelerations doesn’t show, mathematically, that the dilemma has been resolved.
The volume of responses isn’t evidence that the dilemma is solved, just that it remains uncomfortable. When the focus shifts from engaging with the original problem to questioning the motives of the one who raised it, that says more than words.

I'm not getting through am I.
Do you recall I explained to you model based realities of which Kimura's Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution is one of them and how they make real world predictions that are either supported by or rejected by experiment and observation?

A multitude of experiments clearly show neutral mutations vastly contribute to substitutions in the population not the adaptive beneficial mutations posited in Haldane's dilemma. We are now referring to actual data, not interpretations, theoretical considerations or any other activity.

Feature	Neutral Molecular Evolution	Haldane’s Adaptive Phenotypic Evolution
% of genomic change	~99% of substitutions are effectively neutral—molecular differences arise mostly via genetic drift, not positive selection (Wikipedia, U-M Websites)	~1% or less—adaptive phenotypic substitutions are rare; many estimates in humans approach ~0% adaptive (Wikipedia, U-M Websites)
Mechanism	Genetic drift fixes neutral or nearly-neutral mutations at rate ≈ µ per site (Wikipedia, PMC)	Natural selection fixes beneficial mutations—but they are rare and constrained by reproductive cost
Rate	High (mutation-limited): substitution rate ≈ mutation rate per site, producing a molecular clock (Nature, Wikipedia)	Low (cost-limited): adaptive substitutions accrue slowly due to Haldane’s substitution-load constraint
Haldane’s constraint?	No – neutral substitutions incur no reproductive cost or selective load	Yes – adaptive substitutions carry reproductive cost, bounded by substitution load

Based on the data only around 1% of substitutions are based on Haldane's dilemma hence there are no constraints on evolution due to this small percentage. The dilemma is well and truly debunked both theoretically and evidence based.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're correct. Haldane noted in the same paper where he described his dilemma, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision". He knew very well that his model significantly over-simplified things.

And that's how it is supposed to work. You come across something that is or might be a problem, come up with a possible solution or at least properly characterize the problem and publish it. It does no good trapped in your notes.

But that doesn't matter to creationists like @1Tonne who all they know about it is that some creationists have told them it's a slam dunk against evolution. They truly don't understand the subject (as evidenced by their posts), which prevents any kind of in-depth discussion.

He does know a lot of ID creationist talking points and can rattle them off. Understanding would be useful.

It''s like trying to explain the intricacies of soccer formations and strategies to someone whose knowledge of the sport is "they just kick the ball around".

I still haven't figured out "off sides". It should be fine if you do a toe drag over the blue line...