RufusAtticus

First Setterfield, now Remine. Baptistboard might become the next home for "professional" anti-evolutionists.

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=3" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=3</a>

-RvFvS

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Automaton

ReMine was (is?) a regular at talk.origins.

pangloss

My response, as I doubt it will make it unscathed on the BB (hey - they've got heros to protect!):

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

SCOTT PAGE
Distortions and obfuscation from Walter ReMine


This frequently occurs in creationist writings – John Woodmorappe is famous for it. Provide numeorus citations to support a non-controversial point, and imply that your position is well supported. I should have indicated that you mention only two or three papers that are critical of Haldane’s hypothetical model. I have Van Valen’s paper in front of me. The footnote of p.216 does indeed listmany citations. In support of your statement ‘explaining’ Haldane’s model. Van Valen, on p.186, does indeed explain the same thing. So what? That is non-controversial. I have little reason to suspect that your other citations do anything but the same – reiterate a non-controversial point.

I do have to wonder – where are the footnotes filled with citations for your statements on p. 209 and 217? You do not provide a SINGLE citation supportive of your rhetorical pleas. The objective reader should wonder why that is.

“Take an ape-like creature from 10 million years ago, substitute a maximum of 500,000 selectively significant nucleotides and would you have a poet philosopher? What does that sound like to you?” (p.209)

“Think about it again. Is 1,667 selectively significant nucleotides enough to make a sapien out of a simian?” (p. 217)


However, I admit that I should have been more clear – I should have specified that you provided only two or three citations that contradicted or provide solutions to Haldane’s model. So only you DO understand it all, right Walter? As I said – all you do is claim that everyone else is confused and imply that they are all engaged in some sort of cover-up to ‘hide it’ from the public. Haldane’s ‘dilemma’ only seems to be a ‘dilemma’ if: his assumptions and parameters are always correct and always apply to real populations (they are not and do not); you believe – without rationale – that some gigantic number of beneficial alleles are required to account for phenotypic changes (they are not). It is true that you have never explicitly said that there is a conspiracy, it is true that you have denied saying there was. 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? It is neither garbled nor does it not match your ‘criticism’ (premised on a doctored quote). The ‘target’ of your criticisms is anyone that does not accept Haldane’s model at face value, and assume that it is all-encompassing and always accurate and correct. Oh, I stand corrected. Generally, perhaps, but not this time. However, the rest of my assessment is correct. The intent is the same. You omit – without indication – the meat of his sentence. Indeed, you omitted it in your response! But let’s put it back in – in its entirety -, so everyone can see why I felt that it was important:


“Kimura (1960, 1961) has referred to this loss as the substitutional (or evolutional ) load, [NOTE – this definition by Kimura has probably contributed to ReMine’s misunderstanding of the issues] but because it necessarily involves either a completely new mutation or (more usually) previous change in the environment of the genome, I like to think of it as a dilemma for the population: for most organisms, rapid turnover in any few genes precludes rapid turnover in the others.”
Haldane’s dilemma, evolutionary rates, and heterosis. 1963. PNAS 47(894). Van Valen. Leigh. So, you admit that the quote is butchered, at least. Alas, it seems to me that your characterization is what is bizarre. I also have your Hartl reference, and that is anything but bizarre. Unlike your book, Hartl’s provides the math to support his claims. The math in your book is simply reiteration of what others had already done. Your book might match up what YOUR van Valen quote says, but when it provides only a doctored quote from a paper that provides a rationale as well as supporting documentation for the author’s position, the effort seems a bit curious.

I am unclear as to why ReMine thinks that no one should dare manipulate Haldane’s model, or provide alternatives, or apply it in different ways than Haldane did. His book certainly provides no such answers. It is all well and good to accuse Van Valen of being confused, but I see no confusion at all. Rather, I see repeated attempts to belittle published population geneticists and evolutionary biologists. Van Valen applies your beloved cost issue, he just applies it in a different manner. You misrepresent him, as the actual quote shows clearly. And are not individuals part of a population? Your criticism itself seems more a semantics game than anything else. Hey – I actually agree! Haldane’s model IS a problem for theoreticians, not for populations or evolutionary theory. It is, basically, a math problem, and recent publications using actual data have shown that Haldane’s model is in error, in addition to earlier theoretical papers showing the same. I don’t see at all how the words ‘dilemma’ and ‘cost’ are at issue. I think maybe you refer to ‘load’ and ‘cost’? Well, either way, those in the know understand the differences, if any, depending on what type of load is being discussed. Walter ReMine misrepresented Leigh Van Valen (and who knows whom else?) in his book and misrepresents my post above. I 'left out everything' in your book on this issue, maybe because, Walter, my main point was to show your lapse in scholarship, not your treatment of Van Valen’s paper as such. That you have tried to turn this into your favorite ‘misrepresentation’ game is a given. Yes – a real math problem. I am sure that Van Valen is hurt that you did not include him in your list of ‘powerhouses’ – whom I’m sure you show to be ‘confused’ and to be ‘garbling’ this or that. You claim that van Valen made 'errors' - that apparently only you were able to see - then imply that the rest of his paper was built on those errors and so it is useless. You also ignore the fact that he mentions (with a citation, see Van Valen, p.186) that Haldane's numbers had been applied to the evolution of Homo and found to be lacking.

But here is something that raises MY curiosity, Walter. You frequently show up at various discussion boards to defend some charge that seems to be aimed at you. You provide charges of misrepresentation and posturing, then you disappear, leaving important questions unanswered.

For example, in this thread:
<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000084.html" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000084.html</a>

You wrote:

“…He [Haldane]assumes each beneficial mutation begins at an elevated starting frequency,…”

You were asked by more than one person to justify this claim. You never did.
In a later post, you simply reiterate this:

“In that calculation, Haldane used an elevated starting frequency (he used p=10^-4, or one copy of the mutation per 5000 diploid individuals) which had the effect of lowering the cost, and favoring evolution.”

You then ‘explain’ this with an analogy, then complain that people were asking you about it. Then you never again post in that thread.

Even more curiosity-sparking is this:

Art had written in the same thread:

“Judging from your book ("Changing a nucleotide can be substantially more difficult than described above, because a given nucleotide can take part in more than one gene. For example, each nucleotide determines its complimentary nucleotide on the other side of the DNA double helix, and each side of the double helix can code for a different gene, thus each nucleotide can participate (indirectly) in more than one gene. Also, DNA is read in groups of three nucleotides (known as a codon), so the same strand of DNA can be read three different ways depending on the reading frame. In this way two genes can overlap completely or partially. Because a nucleotide can participate in different genes it can be difficult to change, like changing a puzzle piece that must fit into more than one jig-saw puzzle."), I would guess that this number must be appreciable (10%-50% or more). Otherwise, this consideration isn't really a constraint of nucleotide substitution during evolution.”

You never even acknowledged this part of the post. So, perhaps now you can address it. Can you provide some documentation for:

1. ‘given nucleotides’ taking part in more than one gene, especially in multicellular eukaryotes, like primates. I know this happens in bacteria and such, but for it to be as important as you imply, there must be lots of evidence of this happening in vertebrates.

2. each side of the double helix coding for different genes. I REALLY would like to hear more about that.

3. This ‘overlapping’ of genes in, say, vertebrates.

If these are such obstacles, surely you must have lots of references in mind for these occurring in vertebrates – or, since you spend some time on the human-ape issue, humans or other primates.

Thank you.


SCOTT PAGE

pangloss

Not as censored as I thought it would be, but the very important last part was lopped...

pangloss

Who would have thought?

The great charlatan accuses me of -

MISREPRESENTING him!

ReMine cries this so much it is a wonder that ANYONE listens to his whining anymore.

And to top it off, first he admitted that he misquoted Van Valen, now he says he didn't!

Then he cites from one of 6 papers that I mentioned before and claims that he was right all along!

Gee, Wally kuckoo - why no quotes from the others???

RufusAtticus

Here is my most recent post.

**********
RufusAtticus

Walter (and Fred), you still haven't answered Scott's and my main question.

Please explain how the assumptions of Haldane's model are not violated by the biology of Humans. If you are going to apply Haldane's model to human population, you need to show that we satisfy [b]all[/b[ assumptions of the model. As far as I can tell, there is some assumption of Haldane's model that we violate. That is why our biology doesn't agree with the model. That's far from concluding a recent creation of all life.

This happens with just about every attempt to apply actual biology to models. Models are simplifications. Real organisms and populations are much more complicated.

If your book contains passages answering these questions, then it should be simple for you to cut and past them into BaptistBoard, assuming you maintain a digital version of your work.

Also I have asked you the following questions before on t.o, but never got your answer: What are your qualifications and expertise with respect to evolutionary biology? Did you do any research in the field with experts before you began writing your book?

Thanx, -RvFvS
**********

This is the responce I got:
"Your post is on the board edited to remove the last paragraph. This board is for discussing ideas not personal qualifications. This is one way we are attempting to keep it friendly to non-professional readers and contributors."


-RvFvS

pangloss

My latest reply to ReMine. We'll see how butchered it gets...

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

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. Engineer 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 [i]mathematics[I] 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 a less than accurate 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 to the point of being fraudulent, especially in light of his selective quotation. Walter ReMine’s selective quotes from Darlington’s papers in no way indicates or even remotely implies that this has been “ignored” – if anything, Darlington claims that it has been the result of misunderstanding. To ignore something implies that there is an implicit knowledge 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’. It seems that engineer Walter ReMine thinks that his vanity press book is some sort of clearinghouse of scientific information on this and other topics. In reality, Walter ReMine’s book is virtually unknown outside of creationist circles, and where it is known, it is known as an ego-padding propaganda tome. 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 aspersion casting shos 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 – creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine – 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 your misquote of Van Valen 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.’ 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 bombast from ReMine. Walter ReMine seems to think that ONLY explicit claims should be accepted AS a claim. This is simply the creationist’s way out of a sticky situation. 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 this 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.”

Imagine that…

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 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 designed to sway like-minded, non-scientifically minded anti-evolutionists.

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. He has made his charges, and will now retreat into the mists.

Common antics for creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine.