Haldane’s dilemma

At the God and science forum, there is a bit of a throwdown going on about the common ancestry of humans and apes, from an ape-like creature.

Haldane’s dilemma addressed exactly that question, and proved (as much as scientific theories can be proven), using evolutionary assumptions, that it is impossible for humans and apes to have evoelved from a common ancestor in the time predicted by evolutionists.

Haldane, in 1957, established an upper limit of 1667 beneficial substitutions over the 10-million year period currently believed to have lead to human lineage. All of the unique human adaptations must thus be explained with only 1667 beneficial nucleotide substitutions, and that is where the common ancestry speculations fall flat. In fact, Haldane was very generous in his assumptions, and there exists grounds to reduce the limit further.

“Cost of substitution” of genetic materialis normally explained in terms of genetic death, genetic load, environment, selection and extinction. However, those are all secondary, as Walter J. Remine explains here: Cost Theory

“A cost, as here defined, is simply the reproduction rate required by a given scenario. If the given species cannot supply that reproduction rate, then the scenario is not plausible. In more concise wording, the species ‘cannot pay the cost’. At its core, a cost argument is that simple. A cost and its payment are both reproduction rates. They are defined identically, except that a cost is required by a given scenario, whereas a payment is actually produced within the
given species.”

Simply put, there was not nearly enough time for a human lineage to develop using Darwinian mechanisms. The normal arguments in support of common ancestry, homology and genetic error similarity, cannot overcome this problem, simply because not one of those can be falsified. Haldane’s assumptions, calculations and conclusions are available for critical scrutiny, yet not a single serious challenge has come forth.

Some insist that it is not a problem, but have yet to explain the number of substitutions needed for human adaptations. None of Haldane’s assumptions, like his fitness model, his selection co-efficients or population sizes have been shown to be lacking, in fact, those assumptions are in general use still today.

Opponents have responded in the normal fashion, with mass ad-hominem attacks and denial.


3 responses to “Haldane’s dilemma

  1. Haven’t you heard? It’s been refuted through the art of ignoring the problem. It’s an incredible argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s