pangloss

I can't find them....


**********************************************

Do ‘they’ really show the opposite? Engineer Walter ReMine’s above treatment is a case in point for the distrust of creationist writings present in mainstream science. ReMine refers only to two of the papers I cited, and then plucks quotes from the articles that he can use to concoct the illusion that he has been ‘saying this all along’ and that ‘these‘ show the opposite of what I claimed they do. The first paper engineer Walter ReMine quotes is obviously referring to kin selection, a specific type of selection. Walter ReMine unjustly extrapolates this into some sort of condemnation for all solutions to the cost ‘problem.’ Indeed, the title of that paper, “Genes, Individuals, and kin selection” indicates what the topic will be, and the first sentence of the abstract, as quoted above, indicates Darlington’s feelings on the matter:

“The altruistic-gene theory of kin selection requires conditions so improbable that its reality is doubtful.”

Darlington goes on to lament on how “evolutionary mathematics and determinist sociobiology” are in error.
Does this sound like a full-fledged condemnation of evolutionary theory? A re-statement of ‘Haldane’s dilemma’? Not at all, and engineer Walter Remine’s implication that it is, is entirely unrealistic.

The second paper from which engineer Walter ReMine quotes, “Evolution:Questions for a modern theory” – imagine that, a paper that asks questions of the reigning paradigm! – is also presented in this way.

Walter ReMine sums up the two Darlington papers after disingenuously implying that they represent all the papers I cited before:

“ They argue: (a) that the cost of substitution (a.k.a. the cost of selection) limits natural selection. (b) that this has been "ignored". (c) that the "widely accepted MIS-definition" of natural selection "hides the cost." (d)
and several more juicy points. Those support what I have been saying”

Walter ReMine’s point (a) is non-controversial. Walter ReMine’s point (b) is disingenuous, especially in light of his selective quotation of only two of the papers I cited. Walter ReMine’s selective quotes from Darlington’s papers in no way indicates or even remotely implies that this has been “ignored” – if it had been, it seems to me that the papers I cited would not exist! To ignore something implies that there is an implicit knowledge of that something, and that it is being actively put aside. This is not even remotely implied in the Darlington quotes.
Engineer Walter ReMine’s points (c) and (d) are not ‘juicy’, nor has Walter ReMine been ‘saying this’. Perhaps. Perhaps Walter ReMine can be forgiven for so frequently claiming to have been ‘misrepresented’ when he had not been. Is that true Walter ReMine? Did Dodson think that a mathematical model premised on hypotheticals was really trouble for evolutionary theory when applied to fossil evidence? Even on the face of it, that does not seem to make sense. Who puts mathematical models ahead of empirical evidence? You are implying that, as usual, it is Haldane’s model that is beyond reproach, despite the fact that recent evidence based publications have shown that his numbers were off in real populations. Then perhaps you should write up your astute, evidence backed and mathematically sound observations and submit it via the appropriate channels. I did not say – and have never said or implied – that there is no cost, and neither have any of my references. The only confusion and garbling seems to be coming from those that insist that everyone else is wrong on this issue and that a mathematical model supercedes analyses of actual evidence. You are wrong, engineer Walter ReMine, and this is precisely my criticism of you as laid out previously – you believe that Haldane’s model is ‘set in stone’, despite the fact that Haldane himself recognized that it was not. As for Van Valen, you REMOVED his rationale for applying the cost issue to the population. OF COURSE you can claim he was wrong when you delete something like that. Again, all we have is your repeated, unsubstantiated claims that Haldane’s model, and ONLY Haldanes’ model, is the right model, and MUST be applied to all populations in all situations. Your book purports to ‘show’ a number of things that are ‘shown’ only by overconfident assertion, such as your claims on p. 209 and 217 that you omitted from your reply. So, forgive me for not simply accepting that you have ‘shown’ this or that in your book. You misrepresent not only me, but numerous actual scientific researchers in your book and elsewhere! Your own previous posts show this! You claimed that in fact you cited 14 papers on this issue. Looking into this, all we see is a series of citations supporting a NON-CONTROVERSIAL claim. In YOUR OWN EXAMPLE, you had written that Haldane’s model allows only one substitution in 300 generations, and cited 14 papers in support of this. THIS is not controversial! You cite these papers to support your claim regarding Haldane’s model, you do not cite them for their anti-dilemma claims. You, in fact, seem to be misrepresenting your book. Indeed, you have been doing this all along by claiming that it ‘shows’ this and that. If you say so. Of course, you, and only you apparently, are able to show all of the flaws in all of them, and show that Haldane’s original model is all-encompassing and applicable in all situations (despite Haldane’s own admission that his numbers would need “drastic revision&#8221 . Amazing – in your previous post, you ‘admit’ that you misquote Van Valen – but that it did not change its meaning, now you claim that you did not misquote it! Which is it, Walter ReMine? What kind of ‘quote’ is it that lops off more than a dozen words from a sentence but does not indicate that this happened? What kind of quoting is done in which the last half of a sentence is simply left off with no indication that this happened? It seems that only in the mind of the creationist is such quoting ‘accurate.’ Well, I guess that is all that is required from Walter ReMine. An assertion.
No, I accurately represent all that you have been saying. Engineer Walter ReMine seems to think that ONLY Haldane’s model is applicable and it – in its 1957 form – is universally applicable and cannot be avoided. There is no misrepresentation there – ‘reckless’ or otherwise. Walter ReMine’s repeated and typical charges of ‘misrepresentation’ are so shopworn as to be worthy of only disdain. Typical posturing from ReMine.* Walter ReMine seems to think that ONLY explicit claims should be accepted AS a claim. Of course, Walter ReMine, as he is wont to do, deletes the context of my statement, making it seem as though I meant something else. Just as he did with Van Valen, and who knows how many other legitimate evolutionary researchers. Here is what Walter ReMine omits:


“ You do not ever explain or support those claims about the ‘garbling’ and such. The ‘garbling’ comes form the different terminologies employed. But rest assured, population geneticists understand the issues as well as you do, Walter. You say it was ‘prematurely brushed aside’ – surely, you are aware of the series of articles in PNAS in the late 60’s and early 70’s that provided a number of solutions to Haldane’s model? Surely you know of the publications that show that Haldane’s parameters are rarely applicable to real evolving populations?”

In response to this, Walter ReMine picks two of the several papers I cite, and plucks favorable quotes from them (see above).

One should wonder why Walter ReMine decided not to address any of the other papers, and why he quoted only what he did:

Let us take a closer look at the papers in question, specifically the two that Walter ReMine selectively quotes.

Walter ReMine quotes Darlington’s 1981 paper:

"The altruistic-gene theory of kin selection requires conditions so improbable that its reality is doubtful. .... The probability
of kin selection is further reduced by the cost of evolution by selection. Much current evolutionary mathematics and determinist sociobiology, which ignore how the cost of selection limits the precision of adaptations, including adaptive behaviors, may be dangerously unrealistic."
-- Darlington, PNAS 78, 4440 (1981)

I have already mentioned the title of this paper. I have also already quoted from the abstract of that paper in which it is made clear that the author is critical, not of evolution theory per se, but of altruistic-gene theory of kin selection.

Walter ReMine quotes Darlington’s 1983 paper:

"The blind spot of the present generation of evolutionists is failure to see the consequences and limits of natural selection. Darwinian natural selection is a costly process of differential elimination of individuals. The widely accepted MIS-definition of natural selection as differential reproduction mistakenly hides the Darwinian process and its cost. .... My own 'unhappy conclusion' is that, because most biologists have forgotten what natural selection is, much current evolutionary and sociobiological theory presented by the most influential evolutionists is mistaken and dangerous. Anthropologists and sociologists are wise to distrust it."
-- Darlington, PNAS 80, 1960 (1983)

I have always found it more interesting to see what creationists DON’T quote than what they do. For example, from that paper:

“In spite of the cost, complex adaptations apparently do sometimes evolve relatively rapidly, probably by a combination of great selective advantage and acceptance of less-than-perfect adaptedness.”

So, ‘rapid’ evolution can occur. Indeed, Darlington’s example?

“An example may be the evolution of erect posture and bipedal locomotion in prehuman hominids.”

What about Darlington’s 1977 paper, that Walter ReMine decided not to quote from?

“Comparisons of six hypothetical cases suggest that Haldane overestimated the cost of natural selection by allele substitution. The cost is reduced if recessive alleles are advantageous, if substitutions are large and few, if selection is strong and substitutions are rapid, if substitutions are serial, and if substitutions in small demes are followed by deme-group substitutions.”

He concludes that the cost is still such that most organisms are not fully adapted to their environments (contrary to an assumption of Haldane).

What about the Grant and Flake papers? I am surprised that Walter ReMine did not refer to these, as Flake is an electrical engineer like he is.

From their first 1974 paper – PNAS 71(5) 1670-1671.
“Population Structure in Relation to Cost of Selection”

“The ways out of the impasse suggested here invoke deviations from the usual assumption of a large continuous population with consistent numbers.”

“Yet rapid evolutionary changes in genetically complex characters do occur occasionally in various groups of organisms. For example, racial differentiation in quantitative characters in Mimulus guttatus (Scrophulariaceae) has taken place in 4000 years in certain recent habitats in Utah… 4000 generations in this time perod. […] approximately 100 genes would be undergoing substitution in 4000 generations.”

“It is generally agreed that previously rare alleles could be fixed rapidly, by partly random factors, in one or a few generations during the founding of some new daughter colonies, leading to rapid deviations from the ancestral condition.”

From their third 1974 paper:
PNAS 71(10) p. 3863-3865
“Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma”

“Some groups of organisms have undergone evolutionary changes in multifactorial characters and character combinations at rates apparently exceeding those imposed by a tolerable cost of selection.”

A good question to ask, given this information:
What do we do in this case? Assume that the evidence presented to us is wrong, or that a mathematical model is wrong?

This paper is a good one in that it outlines Haldane’s implicit as well as his explicit assumptions, and that by simply altering (premised on actual population structure/data) the assumptions, the costs are altered.

Again, one should wonder why Walter ReMine did not quote any of the other papers when he lumped them all together and tried to claim that “these papers” showed the “opposite” of what I claimed they did…

Of course not. What IS and should be seen as avoiding the issues is how Walter ReMine simply deleted my quotes from his book – which are central to his anti-evolution thesis – which were nothing more than unsupported opinionated rhetoric.

Walter ReMine provides many citations supportive of non-controversial statements, yet cannot seem to muster a SINGLE quote supportive of his anti-evolutionary claims, then he simply ignores the quotes – from his book – indicative of this clearly non-scientific approach.

Now he is just too busy to engage this debate any further. If he could not spend the time necessary to engage in a discussion, one should wonder why he posted at all.

************************************************


*Interesting epilogue to ReMine's claims of NOT charging conspiracy:

ReMine often complains that he has never claimed that there has been a conspiracy concerning keeping Haldane’s dilemma from the public. He claims that he simply points out that it was “garbled”, “confused”, and “brushed aside” for more than 40 years. But it was not a conspiracy.

Prior to ReMine playing post-and-run on this and a few other for a with me, I had an email exchange with ReMine’s “sales rep”, Karen Kennedy. ReMine mentions a ‘Karen’ in the acknowledgements section of his book. Maybe it is her? Anyway, apparently she and Walter ReMine share the same email address, for when I sent an email to the address listed on the St.Paul ‘publishing’ web site, I noticed that it is the same one that Walter uses.

The point, of relevance to ReMine’s repeated claims that he has nothing of a conspiracy, is that Walter ReMine had better straighten out his sales rep, who, remarkably, uses some of the same statements that Walter does.

From an exchange from last February, emphases mine:


Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:20:05 -0600
From: science@minn.net
To: Scott L Page

“Indeed, evolutionists have known about Haldane's Dilemma for 44 years. It's
implications are straightforward: Human evolution (from, say, 10 million
years ago) must be explained through no more than 1,667 beneficial
substitutions. Yet you did not hear about that "amazing discovery" from
them. Evolutionist experts knew, but remained silent -- keeping the matter
well hidden. The public knew nothing about it, despite its obvious
importance.


And in a subsequent exchange:


“Also, what "real scientists did" was NOT inform the lay public about
Haldane's Dilemma for forty-some years... It is inexcusable.”


Hmmmm… Knew but remained silent… Kept it well hidden… Did not inform the public..

But definitely NOT a charge of conspiracy…. Riiiiiggghhhhtttt……..

Of course, one of my main interests:

“Human evolution (from, say, 10 million years ago) must be explained through no more than 1,667 beneficial substitutions.”

I asked repeatedly in that exchange for some documentation that 1667 is too few. As is Walter’s – I mean, ‘Karen’s, style, the questions were merely omitted in their response.

Sad how the foundational premise of Wally’s ‘refutation’ of human evolution has exactly ZERO evidence in its support, and what is worse, creationists simply gobble it up without question.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]</p>

LeftCoast

While I admit I have not tried to understand the deep background to your arguments, it appears that in a number of places you accuse ReMine of being "disingenuous" - i.e. lying [sarcasm]which of course we know that creationist never do[/sarcasm].

Therefore (in the skewed logic at the BB) you are making personal insults. The fact that you back your assertions up with direct quotations and refutations is irrelevant.

Maybe if you avoid using words that imply lying you can get your message past the moderators over there.

ex-robot

This might be considered an insult if not an appeal to authority. (i.e. you're a stupid engineer who doesn't know anything about biological evolution or don't listen to this guy, he's only an engineer)

Just a thought.

xr
Actually, now that I think of it and with rufs comment, I don't think he would have took offense to that comment. I am sure he has no problem being known as an engineer. He obviously feels he has the additional knowledge to discuss these matters. So on a side note, you might be guilty of appealing to authority.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Its not our fault if the truth hurts. Remine has repeated refused to answer my own questions pertaining to his experience with respect to evolutionary biology. I can only conclude that he is too embarassed to do so.

-RvFvS

Vorkosigan

Yes, they killed a post of mine where Helen selectively misquotes a biology text. What can you do? They are terrified.

Michael

tgamble

maybe if you just put the part she quoted, what the text said and nothing else it would get through.

If not, post it here. Maybe it can be added to Lord Valentine's article on talkorigins.

Coragyps

An aside: I'm not at all sure that the Baptist Board should be abbreviated "BB." My daughter has just brought me home a CD of B. B. King. I am listening to it now. Calling the board in question "BB" is pretty damned insulting to a fine artist.