You don’t know why they disagree? Don’t you think this is a relevant point to discuss?
Ah, quote-mining with boldface. You can cut, you can paste, you can emphasize. You can do everything short of reading and understanding. Not my problem; I’ve invited you to try.
1 Like
No, I don’t think it’s relevant. It’s not relevant to you (not) providing the calculations and/or data that show there is a waiting time problem.
… 11 …
3 Likes
Why do you repeatedly cite something you admit you don’t understand?
Why do you attribute it to Behe and not Haldane?
Why, when you cite it, don’t you admit that most experts consider it to have been solved long ago?
The bold face is directly from the Wikipedia article.
It appears you are mistaken on how the waiting time problem relates to Haldane’s dilemma.
It depends on the expert.
Behe is no expert.
Why aren’t you answering the other questions?
How did you conclude this?
Using my own expertise, as well as Behe’s repeated, documented incidents of incompetence/dishonesty.
How did YOU conclude that most of the world’s experts are wrong about this? Obviously, you have neither examined evidence for yourself nor done any calculations.
Is wishing sufficient?
3 Likes
Doubling down on your ignorance is not a good look for you. But again, I refuse to make further futile attempts to repair your misconceptions.
John
On your side making bald assertions is not a good look. Maybe the Wikipedia article is not accurate but if you think so you should point it out with a supported argument.
The model is pretty straight forward and one world expert “Lynch” made a model that was obviously over simplified and limited. Since the case is problematic for bacteria it is obviously a bigger problem for vertebrates given slower reproductive rates and lower populations.
I think you’re mistaken about Behe as you both share some common ground.
Because they’re two different and unconnected “waiting time problems”.
Not accepting that there is any problem for bacteria, but can you justify your extrapolation? Right away, one difference you are neglecting is sexual reproduction
Is it?
You have never presented your math, despite direct requests now going back years. I assume that is because you are lacking in that department. We have that in common. I too, lack the training and patience which would be required to independently verify and adjudicate population genetics. Bluntly put, based on your postings, I would rate you and I as both incompetent in that domain. The difference is that I am not oblivious to the conclusions of those who are in a position to analyze the data, and actually seek solutions to deepen the model, rather than buttress some vague miracle of the gaps agenda. And the world which can be readily observed by anybody agrees nicely with the evolutionary model.
As per the title of this thread, evolution is a very long term process, and hundreds of millions of years is a very long term. There are indeed limits to how fast evolution operates. What we see around us and in the fossil record reflects that limit, no less and no more.
So you could ask how is it that flying raccoons, blue sentients riding pterosaur like steeds, birds sporting tentacles, xenomorphs and unicorns evolved? Draw a circle around these and say that the waiting time problem shows they could not have evolved. And of course you would be right in so far as they did not. These may abound on some planet somewhere, but here they proved too far off the evolutionary path taken. The world we have is just one sample out of a multitude of possible ecologies - but the point is that some form of adaptation and interaction would happen. It seems to me that population genetics converges quite nicely with the picture of nature we all see, with both its pace of variety and fixity.
1 Like
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the reference in that Wikipedia article regarding Haldane and ‘the waiting time problem’ is to J Sanford et al’s paper on Mendel’s accountant.
Further, that paper explicitly states that Haldane’s dilemma is not the same problem as the ‘waiting time problem’ that colewd is talking about (but refusing to demonstrate exists).
4 Likes
So there’s one less reason for you not to have used it to provide calculations that show what the ‘problem’ is.
That’s not obvious at all. It’s probably not even true.
Assertion rejected as undemonstrated.
… 12 …
2 Likes
Hi Ron
The mathematical models already exist. Is there any reason to re invent the wheel even if I was capable of creating a model? I have a background in math from university and some more recent studies. Asking “for the math” when I have already cited two models demonstrates that those asking lack the skills to evaluate the models.
I do have some experience evaluating economic and physics models. In the case of economic models, the math is similar to the models that both Behe and Lynch are using. Physics models such as general relativity are more deterministic.
All probability based mathematical models have accuracy issues. The biggest question is if they are useful. What you can evaluate in the Behe and Lynch case is if the models are based on the best empirical evidence. Both models are structurally similar the issue again is that the Lynch model is limited to two changes and assumes AA substitutions are neutral which is not realistic.
With all due respect this reasoning is circular. You’re assuming your conclusion.
Population genetics along with the observed level of changes is telling you Macro evolution by known mechanisms is not a viable hypothesis. This is Behe’s message in his paper. What he does concede is that evolution may be true but the mechanism of change is yet to be identified. This I agree with. As you mentioned certain mechanisms of sexual reproduction are not analysed in either paper such as genetic recombination. So far there is little evidence that this can account for the changes we are observing.
Nobody asked that you reinvent the wheel. You can just show the math. Present it, as it were. Nobody is demanding that you derive it all over again, only that you show something other than hand-waving to make your point. Some numbers that aren’t pulled out of thin air, some calculations that exist explicitly here for the review and not “out there”, hinted at vaguely in some works you vaguely reference.
Oh yeah? Wanna put that to the test? 
Interesting claim. I can throw in a GR question in that maths test, too, if you like.
Classical thermodynamics is probability based. What accuracy issues does it have? What about (traditionally interpreted) quantum theory? How do relative errors in particle physics compare to the non-probability-based, “more deterministic” mathematical models, like the N-body problem under Newtonian gravitation?
Well, and either you second his opinion, and are willing to defend it with something other than “oh, but that guy said…”, or you are not, and Behe can come here and defend himself without you. If you cannot show anyone (including yourself) how and why Behe is correct, then Behe saying this or that is entirely without consequence in this thread.
What would be a criterion, by which one would decide if something is, though? Like, on a numerical level, what sort of numbers should a mechanism yield, before you would consider it a viable candidate? Please, show us how you arrived at which ever estimates you reply to this query with.
1 Like
They do. Whole journals, conferences, and texts are devoted to mathematical modeling of evolution, and Behe’s influence scarcely registers.
And my career was in control engineering, but that does not give creds in popgen without putting in a significant slog of work to no real end.
Yes, but the point is that it appears to me that theory is consistent with observation.
No need to be cagey. If it is not natural, it has to be supernatural, whether by poofing different starting points or biotech angels.
1 Like
Behe’s value added was putting up to date empirical evidence in the models. David Stoke (Pitt physics professor) helped him with the model.
I think it is worth it for you to read these papers. If you are an engineer you will start to understand them with a few passes. I would enjoy discussing them with you.
https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.04802904
http://dx.doi.org/10.1110/ps.041171805
This is true to some degree. At the fossil level there is a lack on transitional fossils and at the molecular level the changes are greater than what we know about reproductive variation.
The bigger problem here is the current scientific model is a mismatch with the genetic evidence.
There are thousands of papers that infer the single point of origin model along with natural mechanisms is true yet we cannot even reconcile deer common ancestry based on the genetic differences.