Hi Fred,

You state that when the mutant allele reaches 100 % saturation then the wild type allele has been eliminated. That is just wrong.

The sum of frequencies must equal 1 (Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 1998, p 234). If an allele frequency is 1 (100%), then the wild type is toast.

Just because 1 member of a population has a mutation the others remain viable. They don’t get removed until a selection event happens this could be many generations later which means many mutated individuals will now be around not the 2 proposed by Haldane.

This is not true. Famous population geneticist Ronald Fisher calculated  the odds of a mutant allele surviving the first generation to be .368. The odds it makes it to two generations is only .135 (Futuyma, p 298; also see Spetner, Not By Chance, p 78).

Here is why Haldanes dilemma may not exist. 

The unmutated members of the existing population remain viable for reproduction until the beneficial mutation is selected by some selection event.   Unless this is less than 9 generations after the appearance of the mutation the surviving population is much greater than 2 and is viable for an exponential increase in mutation  

Again, not true. Fisher showed that only 1 in 50 beneficial mutation will ever reach fixation, and it would take many generations to do so (~127) [Futuyma, p 298].

 

After several rounds of mutation and selection several individuals will have 2 or even more mutations and these will again exponentially increase the number of viable beneficial mutants.  

 

Even if true, you are ignoring the devastating effect of harmful mutations, which would greatly outnumber beneficial ones. The load such a rate would put on the species is astronomical and intolerable. Evolutionists' own calculations have shown the mutation rate to be way too high for evolution to be tenable. See my article on this:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm

 

Exponential increases multiply things at great rates when compared with having to cut back to 2 individuals or tiny population each times a "Cost" is incurred. Even if the population is cut back to 10 each time this makes for a massive increase in mutation available 

 

Again, you ignore the other side of the coin. Small populations are bad for evolution because genetic drift will more readily preserve  harmful mutations.

 

Nothing you mentioned even remotely addresses the Haldane cost issue. Every mutation must incur a reproductive cost to go from few to many in the population. There is no way around it.

 

Sincerely,

Fred Williams

Home | The Show | Articles | Debates | Guestbook | Forum | Bio | Speaking | Links