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?
Haldane's Dilemma stands or falls on the math, not on what you think of Kent Hovind or me. The core question is whether there's enough time, given mutation and fixation rates, to account for the observed genetic differences between humans and our supposed ancestors. That question hasn't been convincingly answered across hundreds of posts. Dismissing it by attacking personalities, motives, or making assumptions about what I’ve read only confirms the weakness of the counterarguments. If the dilemma truly were resolved, it wouldn’t require so much deflection.
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.
You’ve provided a helpful summary of the standard response: that neutral mutations, not adaptive ones, account for the majority of substitutions. But that doesn’t resolve Haldane’s original point, it sidesteps it. Haldane wasn’t quantifying neutral drift; he was quantifying the cost of
adaptive substitutions, which
do bear a reproductive cost and are necessary for the evolution of novel traits.
The dilemma remains: how can a species acquire the number of adaptive changes required to explain major phenotypic transformations in the available evolutionary time? Saying ‘it’s only 1%’ doesn’t solve the math, it concedes the bottleneck.
Hundreds of posts later, the core constraint still stands. The original challenge has not been mathematically overturned.
Since @1Tonne is still around here, I'll ask him this question again: if the claim you made is valid, wouldn't the fact that evolution could be mathematically be shown to be wrong be such a massive deal that the entire evolutionary literature and works would be overturned in like... maybe a week or so, instead of still going strong since 1957 when the dilemma was first put forward?
That assumes the scientific community is purely objective and always willing to overturn deeply embedded paradigms. History shows otherwise. Many ideas, true ones, have taken decades or centuries to gain traction, especially when they challenge established systems.
Haldane’s Dilemma isn’t popular because it presents a serious challenge to the pace of adaptive change, not because it’s been mathematically refuted. Its continued presence in discussions like this is precisely because it hasn’t gone away, it’s just been reframed or buried under assumptions that don’t directly answer the original concern.
The persistence of a theory in literature isn’t always a sign of its strength; sometimes it’s just a sign of momentum.
This has already been covered earlier in the thread. If you're going to post links, at least take the time to read the discussion first. I’m not repeating myself just because you couldn’t be bothered.
This is like pulling teeth... Do you believe that the supposed 30 million functional differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, which was one of the premises of Harris argument was a correct premise? Do you believe that evolutionary biology/comparative genomics suggests that many functional differences? That was, after all, what I asked you about.
That specific point has already been addressed earlier in the thread. Harris used the 30 million figure illustratively, and the broader argument remains: even with fewer functional differences, the time constraints under selection still raise legitimate mathematical concerns, as Haldane originally outlined. If you’ve missed that, I suggest reviewing the earlier posts rather than repeating questions already answered.
Good. What I was pointing out is that this statement flatly contradicts your previous claim in this area, without you ever withdrawing that previous claim.
If you think there’s a contradiction, quote the exact statement you’re referring to. Otherwise, I’m not going to chase vague accusations. And if it's already been clarified in the thread, I suggest you read it properly before making assumptions.
Absolutely false. I gave you a link to a paper that clearly states why Haldane's original model was quite thoroughly wrong in a way that grossly overestimated the constraint imposed by the cost of selection. You didn't read it, did you? It then went on to discuss a different argument for a limit, one proposed by Felsenstein and by Nei and based in part on Haldane's reasoning, and then showed from empirical data that an assumption in that model was off by an order of magnitude, causing it again to overestimate the effect of the cost of selection.
In total, you have no idea what limit the cost of selection actually imposes on the fixation rate of beneficial mutations. You also have no idea of how many beneficial mutations have actually fixed in the human and chimpanzee lineages. Based on this complete ignorance of the relevant facts, all you do now is repeat the above empty claim. I don't know if your intention here was to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of creationism, but if it was, your approach has been a smashing success.
You’re proving my point. If the dilemma were truly resolved, it wouldn’t take over 300 posts, assumptions revised by orders of magnitude, and personal insults to defend it. If you think the thread hasn’t already addressed your paper, read it again, slowly this time.
Oh it's because all us scientists, even us Christian ones, just looooooove our sins and evil ways. Or something.
You raise creation up above God and give it the Glory for why we are here. So, yes, Christians who take the Glory away from God have issues, and yet they do not see it because in their own wisdom, they claim to be wise. (This is a sad thing, and I do feel for you. That is part of the reason I stay on these threads. In the hope that you may start to honour God. But sadly, I know that you will continue to mock what I say, even though it is written in scripture.)
I think AV loves you. Don't ignore him.
It's comments like that that put you on people's Ignore lists. It's just rudeness and arrogance on your part and you've no-one to blame but yourself.
AV was simply speaking the truth. River Jordan says that he is a Christian and if so, he should believe what the Bible says. It says "There are none that are good, no, not even one".
I don't even claim to be good. I know that I have sinned too. But I do choose to honour God and give Him the Glory for creation.
... so they're cowards and wouldn't be able to put anyone in their place then.
Kudos for acknowledging that fact, AV. Shows real growth.
Proverbs 26:4 says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him." The refusal to engage isn’t cowardice, it’s wisdom. Some conversations are simply not worth having.
I only continue because this is a Christian forum, and there are Christians who will be reading this, who will learn from my answers and then know how to argue against evolution. Also, it helps me with my apologetics when I talk to people about God in person.
NOTE:
If you’re new to this thread, I strongly encourage you to read through the full discussion before jumping in. Many of the points being raised have already been addressed, sometimes more than once. It’s frustrating to constantly repeat the same responses, especially when newcomers assume they’ve made some decisive point simply because I don’t reply. Silence doesn’t mean the argument was won, it often just means it's already been dealt with earlier. Evolution hasn't stood unchallenged here; it's just that the repetition gets tiresome.
This cycle likely contributes to why evolution persists as an idea, newcomers raise old arguments that creationists have already answered, and when those answers aren’t repeated for the hundredth time, the evolutionist assumes the silence means victory. It doesn't.
