# Kondrashov's Paradox: Why We Haven't Died 100 Times Over

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/kondrashovs-paradox-why-we-havent-died-100-times-over/17840>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [May 26, 2026, 4:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/kondrashovs-paradox-why-we-havent-died-100-times-over/17840 "2026-05-26T16:17:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UncensoredPilgrims](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/uncensoredpilgrims/32/24034_2.png) [@UncensoredPilgrims](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/UncensoredPilgrims)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2026, 5:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/kondrashovs-paradox-why-we-havent-died-100-times-over/17840/6 "2026-05-27T17:37:17Z")

</div>

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> Literate adults can see the difference, but I’ll spell it out for others: Zach claims that load (as described within GE) is not a “serious issue to evolution” (@talkpopgen please clarify or correct as needed), while Masel et al. are saying (at the beginning of a paragraph that poses a question; see below), that we don’t yet understand why populations persist in the face of load.

Where is the quotemine? I sure didn’t see one. If we don’t know how populations can persist in the face of a load then

1. The paradox is not solved and

2. That’s a problem for evolution, since evolution _requires that to happen._

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> but [Zach] does not claim that the paradox is “solved.”

He certainly does. If there is no serious problem for evolution, then the paradox must be solved! Kondrashov himself clearly considered it a serious problem. But wait, there’s more!

[Turn to the debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvTDKXcaQ0U), at timestamp 50:51, where I directly ask Zach if he has solved Kondrashov’s Paradox. He answered,

**“No, but it has been solved, and I’m happy to talk you through it if you like.”**

By what you have written, it would seem that you disagree with him, am I correct?

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> What we can all see, then, is that the apologist either doesn’t understand what he’s reading, or has chosen to quote it in ways that obscure what both Zach and the Masel lab think and do.

I understand what they wrote quite clearly. It is in direct opposition to Hancock’s claim that Kondrashov’s Paradox has been solved. I have not quotemined them in any way. You’re going to have to pick sides here: the Masel Lab or Hancock?

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> I dare the apologist to read the most recent preprint from my kid and Joanna (and their colleagues) and then write a summary here on the forum.

I have already read through it. It contradicts Hancock’s statements and published model, and they calculated an effective population size even smaller than the one I cited in the debate (they calculated it to be 7500). Which is making Kondrashov’s Paradox worse, not better.

The simulation they did bears little resemblance to anything realistic with respect to humans, and the numbers of generations they went through in the sim would be sufficient to kill off the species (200,000 generations!). That’s 100x as many generations as it took to kill off the species in SLiM using accurate human parameters (and over-generous fitness scaling logic).

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> I don’t know if the forum is read regularly by people who – like me, twelve years ago – are descontructing their Christian faith.

That’s very saddening. The new faith you have adopted, faith in evolution, will not be able to save you or provide satisfying answers to the questions of life. I pray you will reconsider.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/kondrashovs-paradox-why-we-havent-died-100-times-over/17840)._