Return to Haldane's Dilemma area
critiqued by Walter ReMine
| Contents |
For a "rebuttal" of my material on Haldane's Dilemma, evolutionists often recommend webpages created for that purpose by Robert Williams.1 His website has been running since about 1996. So far as I can determine, no evolutionist has objected to the material there. Yet Williams's website misrepresents me abundantly, almost completely. As a critique of my material, his website is worthless. The following essay documents his misrepresentations.2
Some readers may find such documentation boring. But it is important not only for sake of Haldane's Dilemma, but also for the history of science and the sociology of our times.
So far as his readers can tell, Robert Williams' webpage presents itself as an authoritative rebuttal of my book's material on Haldane's Dilemma.3 However, after his webpage was up several years, he eventually admitted (on sci.bio.evolution) that he hadn't even seen my book.4 In other words, he had pretended to rebut my book, when he hadn't even seen it.5 Williams's same webpage is still there6 – with his same misrepresentations and pretensions. Though I informed him early of the following.
"ReMine neglects the fact that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Therefor we have actually had two different branches each evolving independently, thus allowing for twice as many gene substitutions (3300 vs. 1700) as ReMine has allowed, even if all of the above is true."
....
"ReMine assumes that all the differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to selection."
My argument is not about the genetic differences between living humans and living chimps. (See here)
"ReMine neglects the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes. Thus, when there are any favorable genes on the same chromosome, their substitution cost would only have to be paid one time for the chromosome as a whole, not one time for each favorable gene. This alone could falsify ReMine's whole argument if many genes are approaching fixation on a few chromosomes."
I did not neglect a "Many, for the Cost of One" effect. In fact, that is the title of the section where I discussed this effect and how it helps increase the neutral substitution rate. In the next section, called "The Payment Multiplier Effect," I discussed the human's 23 pairs of chromosomes (plus crossing-over/recombination), which further help increase the neutral substitution rate. Then I showed why neither of these effects help selective evolution (in the next section called "Selective Evolution.") My contribution on this matter is original and authentic. Williams misrepresented it.
"ReMine ignores the possibility of gene hitchhiking - the concept that even though some mutations are neutral, they will be carried to fixation because they are physically close to a gene that is beneficial."
Contrary to his above claim, the neutral substitution rate is determined by the neutral mutation rate, as commonly accepted – not gene hitchhiking. This, and the "Many, for the Cost of One" effect are discussed in my chapter on Neutral Evolution.
The issue of beneficial mutations hitchhiking together (where they occur near each other in time, and are physically close together on a chromosome) is discussed in my Appendix to Haldane's Dilemma – by quoting Haldane's original paper, where he debunked that approach as unworkable.
In other words, Williams misrepresented me. I did not ignore gene hitchhiking.
"Finally, ReMine ignores the fact that due to non-point mutations (deletions and insertions due to non-equal crossing over), a single mutation can affect many more than one DNA base pair. In fact, what has to be by far and away the most common mutation is the change in DNA due to the alignment mismatch mutations in mini-satellites. These mutations can affect some multiple of between 5 and 15 base pairs and have been observed in as many as 1 in 6 human sperm!." (his emphasis)
I don't ignore non-point mutations – rather, evolutionists do – or more precisely, evolutionists strongly de-emphasize non-point mutations as substitutions. They emphasize that the vast majority of substitutions are point mutations. That is their emphasis. I merely deal with evolutionary theory as they teach it, and show how it leads to problems. My book allows for the full panorama of substitution types (p. 209), including gene duplications, inversions, etc, but uses the point mutation (one nucleotide) as a proper exemplar for how they all are limited by the cost of substitution, and as a proper exemplar for illustrating the magnitude of Haldane's Dilemma to the ordinary person.
Williams notes that one of the "most common" mutations affects "between 5 and 15 base pairs" in human sperm. But that is nearly irrelevant. The issue is not how often a chosen type of mutation occurs. Rather, Haldane's Dilemma is concerned with beneficial substitutions, so the following do not count:
A 15-nucleotide sperm-mutation infrequently becomes a beneficial substitution. More importantly, it is not the type of mutation that evolutionists emphasize in beneficial substitutions. In other words, Williams misrepresented me and evolutionists on this point.
Williams eventually read my book, and claimed so on a webpage he added later. But he added no such disclaimer to his already existent webpage (discussed above), and he corrected none of those misrepresentations, which to this day serve to further misled his readers.
Below are misrepresentations on the webpage he added:7
Smaller details:
The limit of 1,667 beneficial substitutions allows ten million years for human evolution, not five million.
My argument allots 10 million years for the evolution of human adaptations – irrespective of the time "since the last common ancestor with other apes." My book merely points out that this is three times earlier than the occurrence of "Lucy" the four foot tall australopithecine, and twice as old as the alleged split between gorilla, chimpanzee, and man. This helps readers comprehend the magnitude of the adaptations alleged to originate in the last 10 million years. Also, my argument is not about the number of "genes substituted". |
"One important thing ignored by these claims of ReMine … is the simple fact that neutral substitutions do not add to Haldane's substitution cost and are not part of Haldane's Dilemma."
All of that is misrepresentation. My book does not ignore neutral substitutions. It has an entire chapter (17 pages) on neutral substitutions, and calculates their number separately from, not part of, Haldane's Dilemma, and indicates that they do not add to Haldane's substitution cost problem.
"No scientist currently knows the number of non neutral substitutions that have occurred during this time period. (Nor does ReMine, despite his exaggerated claims to the otherwise.)"
That is a misrepresentation. A limit of 1,667 beneficial substitutions for human evolution comes from Haldane's work, and cannot be brushed aside by laying it onto me. The "claims" are not exaggerated, and they are not mine, rather, they derive directly from Haldane.
"An important observation to make here is that while creationists like ReMine ... falsely charge that "Haldane's Dilemma" makes evolution impossible and evolutionists are covering up or ignoring the facts, the scientists are in reality doing everything they can to detect the genetic differences between humans and chimps and get those results published."
That is all misrepresentation. I made no such charge, rather I said Haldane's Dilemma was confused, obscured, and prematurely brushed aside – it was never actually solved. There was no intentional "cover up." Evolutionists thought they solved the problem, when they had merely garbled it. Moreover, for nearly fifty years evolutionists did not notify the public of the Haldane limit (and they still haven't) – 1,667 beneficial mutations to explain human evolution?! They were grossly negligent for that. So it's a farce when Williams says evolutionists are "doing everything they can". They did not notify the public, and they have not legitimately responded to my arguments. They have not responded anywhere in ink – and their Internet responses misrepresent my arguments thoroughly, including their persistent attempt to miscast my argument to focus on "genetic differences between humans and chimps." (See here)
"This rate (based upon observed amino acid differences in organisms) is slightly over half the number of substitutions (500,000) that ReMine thinks is insufficient to explain the last 10 million years of human evolution."
His statement is "based upon observed amino acid differences in [modern] organisms". That misrepresents me explicitly, because that is not my argument. See here.
His misrepresentation is worsened by misappropriating the figure "500,000." See here.
"I have read 'The Biotic Message', and I am aware that ReMine does not stress the issue of the '2 to 3 percent' difference that separates humans and chimps in that book. However, … ReMine does try to make an issue of those differences."
That is a misrepresentation. See here.
"Creationists like Walter ReMine seem to operate under the mistaken impression that scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to "obscure" and "brush aside" Haldane's Dilemma and other problems with the theory of evolution."
He misrepresented me. I said no such thing. On the contrary, many times I publicly asserted there is no evolutionist "Conspiracy." "Conspiracy Theorist!" is a nasty debate tactic evolutionists use to divert away from a serious issue.
"The purpose of this essay is to show that ReMine's arguments are false (or at least greatly exaggerated), and were answered decades before "The Biotic Message" was even published."
Williams explicitly says he is rebutting my arguments, when most of the time he actually omits them altogether. His readers are none the wiser, because he gives no hint of what my arguments actually are. The omission cannot have been a casual mistake in this case.
Here is a brief introduction. An evolutionary substitution begins as a new mutation – few in number. Then, by reproductive means, it increases to many in number. This growth – from 'few' to 'many' – requires reproductive excess. The cost of substitution accurately represents that requirement.
Reproductive excess! My book repeatedly discusses it from many angles. It is absolutely central to my material on Haldane's Dilemma. It is the core concept that Haldane nailed correctly mathematically, but whose physical interpretation (especially the part concerning "genetic death," "substitutional load," and "environmental change"), was garbled for many decades. This concept is the central-hub for clarifications made throughout my material on the subject. Williams cannot have missed it. Yet he failed to mention it in his so-called 'rebuttal' of my arguments.
On the other hand, Williams accurately recites various traditional "solutions" to Haldane's Dilemma8 – which all happen to be false. They are garbled because they entirely omit, or strongly de-emphasize, the central concept – reproductive excess – while emphasizing all the wrong things. Traditional solutions are founded upon those garble-factors, and they fail because of it. Robert Williams's website (and the evolutionists' unabashed recommendation of it) is a monument to confusion. I only wish it were in ink, so I could hold them to it.9
Williams's rebuttal is worse than bad scholarship. He pretends to refute my arguments, when actually he misrepresents them, or omits them entirely. This reflects also on the many evolutionists who recommend his rebuttal and do not challenge it.
Nonetheless, it is the evolutionists' best attempt – or rather, least awful attempt – to refute my arguments on Haldane's Dilemma. If you know a better attempt, please let me know. I intend to address it. I hope evolutionists will someday earnestly engage this great unsolved problem, Haldane's Dilemma.10
1 Do not confuse Robert Williams with George C. Williams, a highly respected evolutionary geneticist who wrote, "the [Haldane's Dilemma] problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else." (1992, in his book, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. New York: Oxford University Press, pp 143-148) Though Robert Williams is aware of this highly relevant quote, he doesn't mention it on his website, instead he purveys the illusion that Haldane's Dilemma isn't a problem.
2 My essay is based on Robert Williams's website content as of June 22, 2003, located at: www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html
3 Robert Williams' webpage presents itself as a rebuttal of my book's material on Haldane's Dilemma.
It begins by citing my book: "In his book 'The Biotic Message', Walter ReMine claims that ....", and it cites no other specific source from me.
It postures itself as an authoritative rebuttal of my position – which is only given in my book (and not on the Internet, a point I often remind people of).
It frequently claims that I "ignore" or "neglect," such-and-such, and that I "assume" such-and-so – thereby implying (falsely) that he had an authoritative knowledge of my material.
It includes no disclaimer announcing that his rebuttal isn't based on my book.
4 I challenged Williams on the matter, at sci.bio.evolution, where he eventually admitted he hadn't seen or read my book. In other words, he had pretended to rebut my book – but hadn't actually read it, and didn't notify his webpage visitors of it (and still hasn't). I posted this matter on talk.origins at the time, wondering whether evolutionists would object to Williams's lack of scholarship. No evolutionist seriously objected. Rather, they found it sardonically humorous, and they increased recommending Williams's website as a rebuttal to my position. (You might find some of those here: newsgroup posts that cite Robert Williams's webpages on Haldane's Dilemma.) I then pointed-out, on talk.origins, the evolutionists' double-standard of requiring high scholarship from their opponents, but none from their fellow evolutionists. The result was as scurrilous as before. Through various incidents, I eventually recognized that every foul tactic is routinely accepted at talk.origins, so long as it favors evolution.
5 Williams is not the only evolutionist to pretend to rebut my book – without notifying his audience that they hadn't read the book. Several other evolutionists did likewise. I previously documented several examples of it on talk.origins. Another example is Professor Massimo Pigliucci in our live debate at the University of Minnesota, and (for a while) also on his website.
6 The earlier webpage – where he pretended to rebut my book, but bothered neither to read it, nor inform his readers of that fact – is: www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane3.html He also posted it Sep 12, 1997 to talk.origins here.
7 The added webpage – created after he read my book – is: www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane.html
8 Williams offers one non-traditional solution. See here.
9 As of January 2005, ALL the evolutionist attacks on my book (concerning any subject in my book) are in fleeting, transitory, ephemeral form (such as oral presentations or Internet webpages and discussion-groups) – not in ink – and almost always under anonymous pen-names. In most cases, that allows evolutionists to later remove, alter, or deny they ever made their many misrepresentations. To the present date, evolutionists posture like they're refuting my arguments, but thoroughly misrepresent my arguments, or (more often) omit them entirely.
10 NOTICE: This essay does not remotely represent my whole argument concerning Haldane's Dilemma. Rather, it is intended to document Robert Williams's unscholarly webpages, and hopefully to raise your interest in Haldane's Dilemma. That is self-evident, and really goes without saying. Yet I say must it here because evolutionists often pretend to rebut my book, while instead grossly misrepresenting it. When countered, they run for cover, and only then claim their rebuttal was based perhaps on some (usually left unspecified) off-hand, introductory post I made somewhere. That behavior is reprehensible. Therefore, if you intend to refute my book, then do what you demand of your opponents – check-out the book at the library, and do what scholars do. Many copies of my book have been donated to libraries for your convenience.
Copyright © 2005, 2006 Saint Paul Science Inc., All Rights Reserved.