Haldane's Dilemma Part 2 by John Harris
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Does evolution have enough time? Join us as John Harris of Living Waters Europe explores that question. Tonight is the conclusion to last week's presentation.
www.livingwate...
tinyurl.com/cf...
lets.church
Awesome! Have never heard this described more clearly. Thank you for your work!
Incredible!
Haldane died an Evolutionist!
Obviously, his dilemma did NOT even change HIS mind about the truth of evolution.
He just assumed future research would refute his dilemma, whiich is, in fact, TRUE.
So science of the gaps
@@puck2113 haha, thats a good one!
This is a hot load of nonsense. You clearly aren't close enough to the field of biology to have a sense of how and why we moved on from the neutralist-selectionist debate. I agree that the debate was sort of unresolved in the sense that the old guard of biologists never really accepted the new technologies that we had to investigate evolution, namely molecular genetics. But it's been a long time since that old guard retired from the field and we now have tons of data to support the findings of the early molecular biologists. We don't need to make inferences from proteins anymore about neutral mutations. We have genomics! We have paleogenomics! Insisting that Haldane is relevant in 2024 is like insisting that Newton is relevant to quantum field theory. Genetic drift, evo-devo, spandrels, and niche construction are all demonstrated mechanisms for evolution. It's been a long time since we were stuck with Haldane's adaptionist reasoning.
Also, you are not representing either Haldane or Kimura in good faith. You're quote mining to support your incorrect claim and ignoring all the relevant bits that would actually help explain and contextualize their arguments. This is why you could never present this as a seminar in front of actual biologists. You would be torn to shreds or laughed out of the room.
Congratulations@@alexbreiding, you did exactly what every religious Evolutionist does; use a lot of words but say nothing 🙂. Sadly, that's what religion does to people.
At this stage I have two choices; I could take you through each one of your claims to show how they don't help (thus carrying the burden of proof myself for a claim you made), or ask you to explain each one (and let you realise yourself how they don't work).
Therefore, please go ahead and explain how you're going to achieve the necessary beneficial mutations (on average 60 *beneficial* ones per generation without fitness cost). Show us how this is going to happen with every single generation for 10 million years (generation-after-generation) even though we don't observe any of this happening today. Please feel free to use: Genomics, Paleogenimics, Genetic Drift, evo-devo, spandrel and niche construction. If you want, you can even use: hybridization, genome duplication, symbiogenesis, chromosome restructuring, horizontal DNA transfer, mobile genetic elements, and epigenetic switches etc.
If you think it's based on a different mechanism such as neutral mutations, then explain how you can avoid error catastrophe when the changes are expressed.
If you wish to invoke Natural Genetic Engineering, that's great, because that works in my favour.
May I note, I have been very kind to Evolutionists in my presentation. I even assumed that the remaining 99% difference are 100% identical to the human genome even though we know it's *not* the case according to the latest genome sequencing. But, don't worry, I'm going to ignore all that, because I'm used to making a lot of allowances for evolutionist 🙂.
I'm baffled by the Evolutionists' attitude. At least John Haldane and Motoo Kimura were honest about the problem. Why can't all evolutionists do the same? I wish Evolutionists would show more respect towards John Haldane and Motoo Kimura etc.
@@LivingWatersEurope Sure, I'll bite. I don't think any evidence would convince you that Haldane's Dilemma is by no means a challenge to the fact of evolution. But for the sake of education, I'll point you in the right direction if you or someone else wants to learn some actual biology.
Haldane was operating with less data, less precise and fewer methods, and far less computing power. As a result, his model made a assumptions -- which we don't blame him for -- that turned out to be unfounded empirically or just overly simplistic. This is how science progresses. We didn't throw out Newtonian mechanics with the discovery and description of electromagnetism. Instead, we applied new math and came out with relativity, which takes Newtonian mechanics as token. Relativity just has a fuller picture than Newtonian mechanics. With new methods and new technologies, we are able to test more complex and yet narrow models, from which we can build more complicated and robust theories that best incorporate all of the data. Haldane, upon finding that there is a theoretical upper limit to heterozygosity that doesn't match our observations of nature, didn't toss out evolution. Rather, it prompted him and others to ask, "what are we missing?" So they looked elsewhere and started asking different questions. This is how science works. Neither Haldane nor Kimura identified a problem with the observed fact of evolution. It's strange to me that you evoke their work as if they were dismantling evolution as an explanation for biodiversity or used their work as an argument for alternative, supernatural hypotheses.
Once we started asking new questions, making new hypotheses and testing them, we learned a great deal about evolution. We learned that the classical model of natural selection that emerged from the modern synthesis was only a tiny fraction of what is driving evolution. Neutral theory and genetic drift has a mountain of evidence demonstrating its relevance in driving evolution. Applying error catastrophe (a la Eigen) is like insisting on solving modern physics with Newtonian mechanics. Eigen assumed that evolution was driven by selection alone and so allele frequencies in a population must theoretically be defined by a mutation-selection balance. It makes a little more sense for RNA viruses that are asexual, mutate rapidly, and are more directly constrained by selection effects. This ignores all other drivers of evolution which are now well-established. It also assumes recombination in sexual reproduction and any stochastic effect of finite population sizes. It also assumes the independence of the mutations that could be considered errors. We now understand the neutral network of genotypes behind a given selected phenotype much better than Eigen or Haldane. We see that genetic redundancy within a neutral network can reduce phenotypic mutation rate without altering the underling genetic mutation rate. So error catastophe thresholds are dependent on the size of neutral networks (Bull, Myers, Lachmann, 2005 "Quasispecies Made Simple," if you want to read a paper demonstrating this). Error catastophe is real, but it doesn't seem to apply as much to populations of more complex, sexual organisms. See also Kun, Snaton, Szathmary, 2005, "Real ribozymes suggest a relaxed error threshold").
But even if we stayed within the now-outdated, purely selectionist understanding of evolution, there have been many accepted responses to the upper limit Haldane theorized. There's soft selection (Wallace, 1975 and Dobzhansky, 1962, or my favorite, Charlesworth, 2013, titled "Why we are not dead one hundred times over" using genomics) and gene hitchhiking (Maynard Smith, of course, but Gillespie and many others have confirmed this), to name a couple.
Most interesting to me is a 2019 paper in Genome by Hickey and Golding "Sex solved Haldane's dilemma" which uses modern computing power to do what Haldane never could with his elegant but simple math. These authors modeled the cumulative reproductive cost of multi-locus selection for sexual organisms (like the cattle that Haldane used as an example). In essence, their algorithm could calculate adaptive rate (when an allele is fixed in a population) taking into account recombination, as opposed to the asexual reproduction assumed by Haldane. It turns out that the limit Haldane theorized completely vanishes when we take into account recombination.
Either you're ignoring many decades of work and thousands of peer-reviewed papers, or you're just not arguing in good faith. I mean, why are you presenting this rebuttal on creationist blogs and TH-cam channels rather than in biology journals? It could be that there's a world-wide consipiracy of biologists around the world to fabricate data and destroy American fundamentalist christianity. Or maybe you just don't understand the field that well. Which is more likely?
@@LivingWatersEurope you’re trying to help the helpless. They’ve already made up their mind and everything they say is just projection, just look at his worthless reply. Something that you actually answered in the video hahahaa followed again more projection.
I have learned that 99% of them won’t even look at the data and they don’t even watch the video.
Great presentation by the way, I added it to my playlist
@@YoungEarthCreation You're spot on 🙂.
This is a primary example of how revolution is a religious belief. I wish some Christians had as much faith in the Bible as evolutionists have in Evolution 🙂. It's definitely a cult movement.
Nevertheless, I'll be responding to him, less he appears wise in his own eyes (Proverbs 26:5)