Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What does any of that have to do with ToE?I’d like to add one more point: Yale physicist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability of a fully functional bacterium self-assembling by chance from basic components, after heat breakdown and ideal reassembly, as roughly 1 in 10<sup>100,000,000,000</sup> reasons.org. That’s equivalent to rolling snake eyes 64 million times in a row. (Impossble)
Even physicists like Morowitz recognised that such odds make spontaneous life emergence, under random or near-equilibrium conditions, staggering beyond plausibility. Unless we posit non-physical laws or intelligent direction, the chance-based model becomes increasingly untenable.
So far, the dilemma remains: How do you get enough beneficial, fixed mutations in the time available, not just any mutations, but ones that make a coordinated, functional change, when the math doesn’t seem to allow it, even under generous terms?
What does any of that have to do with ToE?
It's possible to misuse numbers in an argument. But the point of Haldane’s Dilemma isn't just "number crunching"; it highlights a real challenge about how much beneficial genetic change can realistically be fixed in a population over time, especially when considering real-world constraints like generation length, reproductive rates, mutation rates, and selection limits.As I said on another thread where maths was involved: if you number crunch anything enough, everything becomes a mathematical impossibility, but that doesn't mean squat when we actually have the genetic and fossil evidence that shows that evolution via natural selection happened.
There really is no dilemma for the theory of evolution because the biological science behind it, the only real facet of science that evolution falls or stands on, shows that it's a sound theory.
It's possible to misuse numbers in an argument. But the point of Haldane’s Dilemma isn't just "number crunching"; it highlights a real challenge about how much beneficial genetic change can realistically be fixed in a population over time, especially when considering real-world constraints like generation length, reproductive rates, mutation rates, and selection limits.
Even if we assume high mutation rates (like the commonly cited 50–100 mutations per human generation), most of those are neutral or harmful, not beneficial. For evolution to explain the development of all the complex biological systems we observe today, a huge number of coordinated beneficial mutations would need to have been fixed in populations across time. Haldane was asking whether the math allows for that, not whether mutations occur, but whether enough of the right ones can be fixed fast enough, especially in organisms with longer generation times (like humans or primates).
This dilemma hasn't been "solved" by simply pointing to fossil or genetic evidence. It’s more a question of time and mechanism. Saying the fossil record shows change doesn’t answer whether the rate and complexity of that change are biologically feasible.
In fact, even some evolutionary biologists acknowledge that we still lack a full explanation for the origin of new functional information in genomes. The math isn’t everything, but it helps test whether the proposed mechanism has real-world plausibility.
That would be mutation and natural selection. Only religious folks believe otherwise.In fact, even some evolutionary biologists acknowledge that we still lack a full explanation for the origin of new functional information in genomes
You mentioned a 2008 paper that argues sexual reproduction solves Haldane’s Dilemma. It’s true that recombination in sexual populations allows for more efficient selection across multiple loci, and this does help address one aspect of the issue. But it's not the silver bullet some think it is.Then it's a good thing for evolution that, as I said, biological science is the only real science that evolution stands or falls on, because Haldane's Dilemma has been solved.
As has been pointed out: Sex solves Haldane's dilemma.
"Introduction: The cumulative reproductive cost of multi-locus selection has been considered to be a potentially limiting factor on the rate of adaptive evolution. In this paper, we show that Haldane’s arguments for the accumulation of reproductive costs over multiple loci are valid only for a clonally reproducing population of asexual genotypes. We show that a sexually reproducing population avoids this accumulation of costs. Thus, sex removes a perceived reproductive constraint on the rate of adaptive evolution. The significance of our results is twofold. First, the results demonstrate that adaptation based on multiple genes—such as selection acting on the standing genetic variation—does not entail a huge reproductive cost as suggested by Haldane, provided of course that the population is reproducing sexually. Second, this reduction in the cost of natural selection provides a simple biological explanation for the advantage of sex. Specifically, Haldane’s calculations illustrate the evolutionary disadvantage of asexuality; sexual reproduction frees the population from this disadvantage."
Look, you're obviously smart, that's a fact in of itself, but you are wrong on this matter, and you've been duped by someone citing big numbers without exploring what the numbers means and what the science actually says. When it comes to the theory of evolution, and I will keep repeating this as long as it needs to be said, stands or falls on biological science and biological science alone. Mathematics has nothing to do with it, physics has nothing to do with it, any other scientific discipline outside of biology has nothing to do with it. Evolution only concerns biology, and biology is the last word on the matter.
You mentioned a 2008 paper that argues sexual reproduction solves Haldane’s Dilemma. It’s true that recombination in sexual populations allows for more efficient selection across multiple loci, and this does help address one aspect of the issue. But it's not the silver bullet some think it is.
Haldane’s original concern wasn’t just about how selection works in asexual populations, it was also about the cost of replacing alleles across generations in sexually reproducing populations. Even with sex and recombination, there are still real limits on how fast beneficial mutations can spread and become fixed, especially in species with long generation times like humans or primates. His concern was: How many advantageous genetic substitutions can realistically occur and become fixed within a given amount of time, without compromising reproductive viability?
Let’s not forget that sexual reproduction introduces new challenges too, such as linkage disequilibrium and recombination load, which complicate selection. So, while sex may alleviate some parts of the dilemma, it doesn’t eliminate all the constraints on adaptive evolution, especially when we're talking about the origin of complex traits that require multiple coordinated mutations.
Also, the idea that evolution "only concerns biology" and that math, physics, or other sciences are irrelevant is simply not correct. Biology doesn't operate in isolation. In fact, population genetics, the very framework evolutionary theory uses, is grounded in mathematics. Fields like bioinformatics, statistical modelling, and computational simulations are central to modern evolutionary studies. Even the claim that "sex solves Haldane’s dilemma" comes from mathematical models of population genetics!
You said that Haldane’s Dilemma is just “post hoc logic,” but it was actually raised as a predictive challenge, not something constructed after the fact. Haldane wasn’t a creationist trying to disprove evolution. He was a leading evolutionary biologist trying to understand the limits of natural selection. His dilemma wasn’t made up to refute evolution, it came from within the evolutionary framework, using population genetics. That’s why it still matters.Yet none of that is a problem because biology shows that evolution is a proven biological fact. Number crunch it however you want, but since you're working out the numbers AFTER the fact has happened, your claims that Haldane’s Dilemma is an actual dilemma for evolution is a bad example of post hoc logic.
You and the creationists who made this claim are just flat out wrong. If you were right, then why hasn’t the theory of evolution been overturned simply by Haldane’s Dilemma?
Okay, those are indeed generous numbers.Let’s break down Harris’s simplified math:
1. He assumes 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.
2. He uses a conservative 1% difference between humans and apes (which equals 30 million base pair changes).
3. He generously assumes a 20-year generation span and 10 million years since divergence (this gives 500,000 generations).
4. He assumes one beneficial mutation fixed per generation, which is extremely generous. Most estimates suggest one beneficial mutation fixed every few hundred generations, with the vast majority being neutral or deleterious.
And that's just completely wrong. No biologist thinks there are 30 million functional mutations distinguishing humans and chimps -- even 500,000 is far too high. The vast majority of genetic differences between the two species have no functional effect, just as the vast majority of the ~3 million genetic differences between two copies of the human genome have no effect.Even under these very favourable conditions, we only get 500,000 beneficial mutations fixed across human evolution, but we supposedly need 30 million meaningful genetic changes.
This is indeed a valid question with population genetics, one that I suspect the video does not actually engage with meaningfully. Haldane's simple model was clearly wrong in important respects. For a very recent (and quite technical) update on the subject, you could look here: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/229/4/iyaf011/7979206. The short answer is that for some species in some rapidly changing environments, the kind of speed limit on selection that Haldane suggested might indeed cause problems, but in general the limits are likely to be much higher than Haldane's model implied and not a significant limit on the rate of adaptation.The issue isn’t that we’re just throwing big numbers around for shock value. The concern is: how much beneficial genetic change can accumulate in realistic timeframes, especially in slowly reproducing organisms like humans? Even with sex and recombination, there are constraints; selection isn't infinitely fast or efficient. These aren’t post hoc objections. They’re mathematical limits within the model.
Complete nonsense, and offensively so. With how many biologists have you discussed evolution and worldview?And yes, I’ll be honest, on a worldview level, I think part of the reason evolutionary theory remains so fiercely defended is because it removes the need for a Creator. If life is the result of undirected processes, then we’re just cosmic accidents. But if we were created, then we’re accountable to our Creator. That’s a sobering thought, and one that many would rather avoid.
And yes, I’ll be honest, on a worldview level, I think part of the reason evolutionary theory remains so fiercely defended is because it removes the need for a Creator. If life is the result of undirected processes, then we’re just cosmic accidents. But if we were created, then we’re accountable to our Creator. That’s a sobering thought, and one that many would rather avoid.
So, this isn’t just about fossils or math. It’s about worldview commitments. Evolution provides an explanation that keeps God out of the picture, and for some, that’s exactly what makes it appealing. But science should follow the evidence, not personal preferences.
Yeah.'Big maths number means evolution is impossible'.
Yeah.
What are the odds of you being you?
Well, picking a number in the middle of a range, the number of sperm that could have fertilized your mom's egg: about 100,000,000.
Picking a number in a typical child bearing range, the number of eggs that your mom could have been fertilized is around 250,000.
Thus the odds of you being you is about 1 in 25 trillion.
BUT WAIT, what about (sticking with either paternal or maternal lines) the odds of your dad being him? 1 in 25 trillion.
So the odds of you being you are now one in 625 trillion trillion.
Let's go back to one's great grandfather: one in 4x10^53.
So in just 6 generations (on just one side of the family, 2 more generations than I've calculated), there are more combinations than there ways to deal a standard deck of cards 8x10^67.
AND that's only in a straight line. If we count the other side of the family at EACH generation, I'm not sure of the math -- square it??, that's about 16x10^106.
So clearly, none of us exist.
(not at @Warden_of_the_Storm, clearly)
(Apologies to the biologists for over simplifying.)
Like I said, there are multiple specimens. Plus, hominids are symmetrical.While there are many fragments from hundreds of Australopithecus afarensis specimens, Lucy herself is only about 40% complete, not a near-intact skeleton.
And yet, we continue to make correct predictions about fossils that are found.More complete individuals like “Selam” and “Little Foot” exist, but they belong to different individuals and come with their own uncertainties. So the claim of “no question about the completeness” is misleading. At best, A. afarensis is one of the better-represented early hominins, but that still doesn’t show a clear, continuous lineage or remove the need for interpretive assumptions.
You seem to be admitting that the fossil record shows change. Is that correct (Y/N)?This dilemma hasn't been "solved" by simply pointing to fossil or genetic evidence. It’s more a question of time and mechanism. Saying the fossil record shows change doesn’t answer whether the rate and complexity of that change are biologically feasible.
I knew that's what you meant; I just thought I'd take the opportunity to illustrate.But this is what I mean by using maths to deal with anything as a probability is flawed because if you crunch the numbers enough, LITERALLY EVERYTHING BECOMES A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
And since with evolution, you're working BACKWARDS from an even that already happened, which literally means nothing at all since the changes of the event happening are 1:1.
I knew that's what you meant; I just thought I'd take the opportunity to illustrate.
BTW, there are "only" 10^82 atoms in the universe: How many atoms are in the observable universe?I don't mind. Elucidation by people more knowledgeable about a subject then I, if I get the ball rolling as it were, is always welcome. I just feel that I have to restate that point time and again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?