Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Basic Evolutionist Time Sandwich
7/23/06 | self

Posted on 07/23/2006 9:36:42 AM PDT by tomzz

Assuming macroevolutionary scenarios were possible (they aren't), the question arises, how much time would you actually need for them? The basic answer to that question is known as the Haldane Dilemma, after the famous mathematician and population geneticist J.B.S. Haldane who published his work in the mid 1950s. The basic answer is that you would need trillions and quadrillions of years, and not just the tens of millions commonly supposed. Walter Remine puts a simplified version of the idea thusly:

Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or “proto-humans” ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a “beneficial mutation”. Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in “human evolution”. The max number of such “beneficial mutations” which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.

That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.

But nobody ever accused evolutionists of being rational. Surely, they will argue, the problem might be resolved by having many mutations being passed through the herd simultaneously.

Most of the answer involves the fact that the vast bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal. ANY creature which starts mutating willy nilly will perish.


So much for the amount of time evolutionists NEED (i.e. so much for the slice of wonderbread on the bottom of the basic evolutionist time sandwich. What about the slice on the top of the sandwich, i.e. how much time do they actually HAVE?

Consider the case of dinosaurs, which we are told died out 70 million years ago. Last summer, scientists trying to get a tyrannosaur leg bone out of a remote area by helicopter, broke the bone into two pieces, and this is what they found inside the bone:

This is the Reuters/MSNBC version of the story

That meat clearly is not 70 million years old; I've seen week-old roadkill which looked worse.

Vine DeLoria, the well-known Native American author and past presidentg of the National Council of Amnerican Indians informs us that Indian oral traditions speak of Indian ancestors having to deal with dinosaurs on a regular basis, and that Indians view the 70 million year thing as a sort of a whiteman's fairytale.

In fact, we appear to have one state named after a dinosaur, Mississippi being a variation of the Ojibway name "Mishipishu", which means "water panther", or stegosaur. DeLoria notes that Indian traditions describe Mishipishu as having red fur, a sawblade back, and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon.

In fact you find pictures (petroglyphs) of Mishipishu around rivers and lakes and Lewis and Clark noted that their Indian guides were in mortal terror of these since they originally signified as much as "One of these LIVES here, be careful".

The pictograph at Agawa Rock at Lake Ontario shows the sawblade back fairly clearly:

and the close-eyed will note that stegosaurs did not have horns; nonetheless such glyphs survive only because Indians have always gone back and touched them up every couple of decades, and the horns were added very much later after the creature itself had perished from the Earth.

You add the questions of other dinosaur petroglyphs and Ica stones and what not into the mix and it seems fairly obvious that something is massively wrong with the common perception that dinosaurs died out tens of millions of years ago.

That is basically what I call the evolutionist time sandwich. They need trillions or quadrillions of years, and all they have is a few thousand.


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dilemma; dinosaurs; enoughalready; gettingold; haldane; idiocy; medved; pavlovian; splifford; spliffordisgay; stupidity; stupidvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-370 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2006 9:36:42 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tomzz

I probably should have noted that the powerpoint presentation which the link involving the Haldane Dilemma points to was for a little presentation I gave at the McLean Bible Church in Virginia on the topic about a couple of months ago.


2 posted on 07/23/2006 9:39:53 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

Ping for later.


3 posted on 07/23/2006 9:40:22 AM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

I've found this to be a fascination subject. Chuck Missler did a study on it that I still have on tape and bring out every now and then. It's still over my head, but it's fascinating.


4 posted on 07/23/2006 9:43:46 AM PDT by SandyInSeattle (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

I'm bookmarking - this could get interesting. I'll sit on the sidelines and watch.


5 posted on 07/23/2006 9:44:18 AM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842
I'm bookmarking - this could get interesting. I'll sit on the sidelines and watch.

Expect a lot of flammage.....

6 posted on 07/23/2006 9:49:21 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
If you have your asbestos suit on, this should get interesting.

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. -- Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom

7 posted on 07/23/2006 9:53:35 AM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

Read later


8 posted on 07/23/2006 9:54:35 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
Utter nonsense ===> Placemarker <===
9 posted on 07/23/2006 9:57:27 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
"The basic answer to that question is known as the Haldane Dilemma, after the famous mathematician and population geneticist J.B.S. Haldane who published his work in the mid 1950s. The basic answer is that you would need trillions and quadrillions of years, and not just the tens of millions commonly supposed. "

It takes all of two minutes to google up how the Haldane Dilemma is invalid .

“Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).

Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.

More in-depth analysis of the Haldane Dilemma here .

I think a reasonable person can be a believer in creation or ID, and I have absolutely nothing against them. But there’s something seriously wrong with someone who goes out of their way to misrepresent evolution.

10 posted on 07/23/2006 10:00:24 AM PDT by elfman2 (An army of amateurs doing the media's job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

Ignorance is bliss placemarker.

How have you been Ted?


11 posted on 07/23/2006 10:04:49 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

I dunno. You come here to get news about the Israel/Lebanon war, and all you find is newbies posting crevo threads, eh?

And as vanities, to boot.


12 posted on 07/23/2006 10:11:49 AM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

LOL. That was funny!!!


13 posted on 07/23/2006 10:15:02 AM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ga medic

Yeah, but it's sort of an inside joke. Over the head sort of thing, I expect.


14 posted on 07/23/2006 10:18:01 AM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

Haldane Dilemma: Not actually a dilemma placemarker


15 posted on 07/23/2006 10:18:49 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate - Robert A Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
Evolution is more of a logical than a scientific problem.

One can be a believer and not deny evolution.

One who is an atheist or agnostic must by necessity believe in evolution. If intelligent design or some other matter suggesting God action is proved then ipso facto they are wrong.

A agree with Coulter what people miss in this discussion is not the religion of the intelligent design believers but the religion of the Darwinists. The reason even a tepid, incomplete discussion of intelligent design cannot occur in the public schools--is the Darwinist religion cannot permit what to them is a heresy. Claiming no faith in God does not make one more objective or "scientific." Such claims themselves are leaps to faith just like any ohter religion.

16 posted on 07/23/2006 10:19:01 AM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
I probably should have noted that the powerpoint presentation which the link involving the Haldane Dilemma points to was for a little presentation I gave at the McLean Bible Church in Virginia on the topic about a couple of months ago.

No kidding. Did you talk about the electric sun and remote viewing too? Betcha that would've been a hit.

17 posted on 07/23/2006 10:19:53 AM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

What would you expect form the clown prince of astrophysics?


18 posted on 07/23/2006 10:20:51 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
No kidding. Did you talk about the electric sun and remote viewing too? Betcha that would've been a hit.

How about the Felt Gravity Effect? And ascii bats?

19 posted on 07/23/2006 10:22:17 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

I am supposing you are right. After all, we are still talking about the "dinosaur meat", and that leads me to think it is not over the head, so much as through the head and out the other side.


20 posted on 07/23/2006 10:22:44 AM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Don't forget Saturn hovering over the north pole.

Bwahahahahaha!


21 posted on 07/23/2006 10:26:51 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

22 posted on 07/23/2006 10:28:59 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ga medic
Just add water...


23 posted on 07/23/2006 10:32:03 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

fyi


24 posted on 07/23/2006 10:32:47 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
How about the Felt Gravity Effect? And ascii bats?

Feral chickens? The magical gravity-reducing properties of Saturn in a polar orbit?

25 posted on 07/23/2006 10:34:19 AM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

Sorry, but actual scientific data trumps simplistic calculations based off of arbitrary parameters and inaccurate models.


26 posted on 07/23/2006 10:34:39 AM PDT by Sofa King (A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
So are "Birth Defects" the driving force of evolution, or not?

Maybe it is better not to donate to the March of Dimes, because with the right Birth Defects we could grow wings, and simply fly where we wanted to go, if the weather was nice, and the traffic was bad.

27 posted on 07/23/2006 10:40:27 AM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
The Ted Holden Quiz Page
28 posted on 07/23/2006 10:40:48 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King

The only thing not to like in Haldane's original formulation of the problem was his describing it in terms of "genetic death". For those who would raise that as an objection, Walter Remine has a couple of new papers out which describe the problem entirely in terms of birth rates.


29 posted on 07/23/2006 10:43:12 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Utter nonsense

Typical evolutionist knee-jerk response.

If you stopped for a moment to consider all the starving African children who could be saved if they were provided with one basic evolutionist time sandwich a day, then you'd change your tune.

30 posted on 07/23/2006 10:43:23 AM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

Why do you think making fun of unfortunate people constitutes a good joke?


31 posted on 07/23/2006 10:46:58 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
"The only thing not to like in Haldane's original formulation"

You see, here's the crux of the problem. Whether or not you like Haldane's formulation is irrelevant to the fact that it's completely arbitrary. I'm sure that you just love his math, but it's still based off of a model that he custom built to give the results that he wanted and not to accurately represent how evolution works.
32 posted on 07/23/2006 10:48:09 AM PDT by Sofa King (A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

Yikes! That would be bad for those of us who work at the only commercial-airplane company in the U.S. By the way, I have never seen any model of airplane - ever after "16 billion years" - mysteriously show up on the flight line. Maybe it will take another 16 billion years???


33 posted on 07/23/2006 10:52:48 AM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Why do you think making fun of unfortunate people constitutes a good joke?

If Birth Defects are how we evolved, they are a good thing, and who are we to challenge life evolving processes.

Besides it may be fun to fly. After all, with Evolution, all things are possible!

34 posted on 07/23/2006 10:52:49 AM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

"That meat clearly is not 70 million years old; I've seen week-old roadkill which looked worse. "

Really ?
Just how old do you think it "clearly" is ?

a week ? a decade ? a thousand years ?


35 posted on 07/23/2006 10:53:36 AM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

Malcolm Muggeridge ? surely not the well known homosexual and Drury Lane Fairy.


36 posted on 07/23/2006 10:55:17 AM PDT by Brit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MadLibDisease

mark for later


37 posted on 07/23/2006 10:56:58 AM PDT by MadLibDisease ("Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to it" R .Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RS

I'd GUESS a few thousand years, possibly as much as ten or twelve thousand. After 60 million years, all that would be left would be petrified material.


38 posted on 07/23/2006 10:59:39 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
If you stopped for a moment to consider all the starving African children who could be saved if they were provided with one basic evolutionist time sandwich a day, then you'd change your tune.

You're talking about making real sandwiches out of evolutionists? Don't know if anybody would want to EAT that....

39 posted on 07/23/2006 11:01:12 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
They're not made out of evolutionists, silly, they're made with recovered Dino meat. Tastes like chicken, and meets halal and kosher requirements for humanitarian daily ration meals.
40 posted on 07/23/2006 11:07:38 AM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

Wow! Did you come up with this theory all by yourself?


41 posted on 07/23/2006 11:09:33 AM PDT by Jeff Gordon (Is tractus pro pensio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
If intelligent design or some other matter suggesting God action is proved then ipso facto they are wrong.

Your initial premise is flawed. Intelligent design does not suggest the existence of a supernatural entity or entities anymore than it suggests the existence of space aliens. In both the theory of evolution and intelligent design, the existence of the supernatural is not addressed.

Darwinist religion

Please comment on this. If I am a proponent of biological evolution, am I also a "darwinist"?
42 posted on 07/23/2006 11:17:06 AM PDT by Boxen (Stupid, frail, non-compartmentalized organic meatbags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
1) Someone at IBM working on OS/2 (which you use at work) tells you that bananas have become sentient and are plotting to take over the world. You respond by:

A) scoffing and telling the dude to get a life.
B) grabbing your shotgun, and heading towards the nearest supermarket to kick some banana ass.

Score:
If you answered A, you are not Ted Holden.
If you answered B, your best friend is a bat named 'splifford', you are referred to as a 'net.loon', and you are Ted Holden. Too bad for you.

43 posted on 07/23/2006 11:19:38 AM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RS

Well,let's not forget about how Czar Nicholas served woolly mammoth meat at a banquet which had been discovered flash frozen in a glacier with partly digested plants still in its system


44 posted on 07/23/2006 11:22:39 AM PDT by Armigerous ( Non permitte illegitimi te carborundum- "Don't let the bastards grind you down")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon

No.


45 posted on 07/23/2006 11:28:38 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
The pictograph at Agawa Rock at Lake Ontario shows the sawblade back fairly clearly . . .

Interesting observation, but the pictograph in question is actually found along the north shore of Lake Superior, not Lake Ontario. The Ojibway natives of that area attributed the harsh, unpredictable weather on the lake they called "Gitchee-Gumee" to the great spirit Mishipizhiw (the dinosaur-like figure in the pictograph).

46 posted on 07/23/2006 11:31:31 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz; AnnaZ; incindiary; knarf; CounterCounterCulture; Alamo-Girl

outstanding find!!


47 posted on 07/23/2006 11:32:09 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
"I've found this to be a fascinating subject. Chuck Missler did a study on it that I still have on tape and bring out every now and then. It's still over my head, but it's fascinating."

Missler is way over most peoples heads but provides fascinating studies. The last two hours I've been listening to his discourse on Matthew 24....guess I'll have to listen a few more times.

shalom

48 posted on 07/23/2006 11:35:39 AM PDT by patriot_wes (Law of Unintended Consequences; Infant Baptism = an unbelieving, unsaved church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or “proto-humans” ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a “beneficial mutation”. Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

Why does he hypothetically eliminate the rest of the herd? There is no logic to it. Any number of the other 999,998 could be the evolutionary spark - take that quantum leap so to speak - that speeds up the whole process.

This proves nothing, really.

49 posted on 07/23/2006 11:40:03 AM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
I think a reasonable person can be a believer in creation or ID, and I have absolutely nothing against them. But there’s something seriously wrong with someone who goes out of their way to misrepresent evolution.

"Going out of their way to misrepresent" .NE. "Not doing sufficient background"

50 posted on 07/23/2006 11:40:37 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-370 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson