Have you read either the Lynch or Behe paper?
I’ve read papers by both, including the paper by Lynch that exposed the flaws in Behe’s claims about waiting times.
I’ve now given you 5 chances to provide some data and/or calculations that show there is a problem, and you have not done so. The waiting time ‘problem’ you keep referring to[1] does not exist, and never will exist.
Any future post you make that doesn’t contain any calculations that show there is a problem can be answered by a repeat of this post, with the count incremented. I see no point in typing it again and again and again.
Which may or may not have some resemblance to some other waiting time problem described by someone else, which also may not exist. ↩︎
2 Likes
The calculations already exist in the papers where with reasonable bacterial populations 2 changes can take over 100 million years. The problem scales most aggressively with the number of changes required for the adaption. Hundreds of millions of years for two mutations is way beyond the time available and changes needed to reconcile the genetic differences between vertebrates.
If you have read the papers then you know the models themselves contain calculations. The issue is if the assumptions are reasonable. I believe Behe’s assumptions are reasonable others can disagree.
Creationists were not the first to introduce the waiting time problem. Haldane introduced this problem in the late 50"s. This was one of the basis of Kimura’s development of neutral theory.
The problem as Behe points out in his paper is that most AA substitutions are deleterious and not neutral. The two biggest problems with Lynch’s paper is his model considers AA substitutions neutral, and his simulation is limited to two changes.
I think this is a garbled reference to Haldane’s Dilemma, which is nothing like the waiting time problem. (It has at times been called that, but it’s a completely different problem from the one you’ve been talking about.) What source did you copy this assertion from?
8 Likes
There is not specific paper but general reading of the subject. What are the differences? Do you agree that Haldane’s dilemma was part of the impetus behind neutral theory?
Then you have no excuse for not providing those data and calculations.
I’ve now given you 6 chances to provide some data and/or calculations that show there is a problem, and you have not done so. The waiting time ‘problem’ you keep referring to does not exist, and never will exist.
5 Likes
If this bald assertion is your opinion then go with it.
Based on the argument I outlined using the models of published papers I think you are mistaken.
If you don’t know, you shouldn’t make claims about the subject. Can you state Haldane’s Dilemma? Can you state the waiting time problem? Think about it, then answer your own question.
2 Likes
The waiting time problem is simply the time it takes for a mutational change to become fixed in a population. The problem is when that time is greater than the differences we are observing.
While Haldane’s Dilemma is more complex involving natural selection it is based on the time to fixation and if that time is adequate to explain the differences observed.
You appear to be quibbling here.
… 7 …
3 Likes
Are you willing to explain the reason behind your bald assertion that there is no waiting time problem?
So you understand nothing about Haldane’s Dilemma. As I expected.
6 Likes
I agree. Why do you think it has nothing to do with the waiting time problem? Do you agree with this statement from Wikipedia?
J. B. S. Haldane in 1964
Haldane’s dilemma, also known as the waiting time problem,[1] is a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution, calculated by J. B. S. Haldane in 1957. Before the invention of DNA sequencing technologies, it was not known how much polymorphism DNA harbored, although alloenzymes (variant forms of an enzyme which differ structurally but not functionally from other alloenzymes coded for by different alleles at the same locus) were beginning to make it clear that substantial polymorphism existed. This was puzzling because the amount of polymorphism known to exist seemed to exceed the theoretical limits that Haldane calculated, that is, the limits imposed if polymorphisms present in the population generally influence an organism’s fitness. Motoo Kimura’s landmark paper on neutral theory in 1968[2] built on Haldane’s work to suggest that most molecular evolution is neutral, resolving the dilemma. Although neutral evolution remains the consensus theory among modern biologists,[3] and thus Kimura’s resolution of Haldane’s dilemma is widely regarded as correct, some biologists argue that adaptive evolution explains a large fraction of substitutions in protein coding sequence,[4] and they propose alternative solutions to Haldane’s dilemma.
Certainly. It’s not a bald assertion, it’ s a conclusion based on your behaviour
The reason is that I’ve now given you 8 chances to provide some data and/or calculations that show there is a problem, and you have not done so. Therefore the ‘waiting time problem’ you keep referring to does not exist, and never will exist.
Ctrl-C Ctrl-V has never been more useful.
5 Likes
Hilarious.
2 Likes
A conclusion based on my behaviour? This is how you make sense of the world based on other peoples behaviour?
You have read the papers but have made no comments on them. You have asked for math and I provided two papers with mathematical models on the subject showing the problem. Do you think those papers are wrong?
You appear to be quibbling and badgering in the attempt to shift the burden.
No, that’s you. You claim there is a problem, you have the burden of showing there is a problem.
… 9 …
P.s. you didn’t provide two papers showing there is a problem, you provided two names, and those named disagree.
1 Like
How and why do you think they disagree?
… 10 …
3 Likes